National Weather Service Announces Unfortunate Tornado Warning Experiment

[rdale]

1. A more clarified, accurate, and advanced radar will probably take more time to update from scanning. The average NEXRAD update is usually 4-6 minutes, so even then we could easily say that the new "dual-pol" radar should update in 6-7 minutes, worst 10.

No, that's not correct. There is no change in update times. They'll still come every 4-6 minutes in storm mode.

Since NWS is wanting to run this, and the budget is being reduced for IT, then guess what people. IT won't be able to put in or afford the required upgrades in processors to analyze the data faster.

No, that's not correct. The ITO position doesn't work on the radar system in that format. The data analysis is just fine as it is, and future developments come from non-ITO positions.

Historical problem: The Joplin tornado went from being non-existent on radar to the next update showing the mother of all hook echos and debris balls in 4 minutes. How can we expect dual-polarization to warn us in time?

We can't. But that's not the point of this test... The test is intended to allow for better communications of the threat, however it is learned.

Yes, maybe insurance underwriters and homebuyer's should look at mandating storm shelters or re-inforced basements.

Insurers have no reason to make such a mandate - it won't change the amount of money they pay to rebuild a home. I'm all for less government intrusion into my house whenever possible. It's an individual's choice.

 

[beaudodson]

Question - opinions

Do we believe that the media will use words or phrases - such as "this is a level 1 tornado warning" - "this is a level 2 tornado warning" - or "this is a tier 1 warning" - "this is a tier 3 tornado warning"

I know the media uses the words "tornado emergency" - but how are we expecting the media to handle these new warnings?

Does anyone have the answer to that question? I am going to guess that it might be different for each station. However, I am wondering how the NWS expects the media to handle this subject.

Anyone have an opinion on that subject? Does anyone from the NWS have any comments on that subject?

I am hoping they do not use the above phrases. I would rather see the media simply give people that information that is being reported by the NWS - if the tornado warning contains information about a confirmed tornado then the media should tell their viewers. Same as always.

Just curious if anyone actually expects the media to use the levels or tiers once they go on the air.

 

[rdale]

Media will continue just like they've always done. If they are meteorologists, they probably already know which storms are I vs III. If they aren't they'll just read off the text like normal.

 

[beaudodson]

Media will continue just like they've always done. If they are meteorologists, they probably already know which storms are I vs III. If they aren't they'll just read off the text like normal.

I hope this is the case. My concern is that some tv stations will go off on their own path and start giving level/tier warnings. I guess we will see what happens.

 

[Jeff Turner]

The many types of warnings and statements is sometimes confusing even to someone like me who knows something about the weather and the NWS. The average citizen is really in the dark since many of them don't get the difference between a watch and a warning. It seems they should simply the types of warnings and statements - like elimintaing statements and just use warnings - and tailor the content to what is observed.

 

[Stephen Shield]

first news article I have seen on the topic by just browsing news stories.

http://journalstar.com/news/state-a...cle_263c8e51-e0a5-5474-9738-9379aa17a56d.html

 

[rdale]

Yeah, that horribly written thing has been making the rounds.

 

[Elaine Spencer]

So how did we get from this (the top-tier warning wording in the original NWS Product Description):

HAZARD...DEADLY TORNADO AND BASEBALL SIZE HAIL
SOURCE...SPOTTERS AND LAW ENFORCMENT CONFIRMED TORNADO. SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO HOMES REPORTED IN THE OAKS SUBDIVISION.
IMPACT...LIFE THREATING SITUATION. EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO HOMES AND BUILDINGS...UPROOTED TREES AND DEBRIS WILL RESTRICT ACCESS INTO MANY AREAS.

to this (the wording provided in the most recent AP story):

HAZARD … DEADLY TORNADO.

SOURCE … EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT CONFIRMED LARGE AND DESTRUCTIVE TORNADO.

IMPACT … COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOODS IS LIKELY. MANY WELL BUILT HOMES AND BUSINESSES WILL BE COMPLETELY SWEPT FROM THEIR FOUNDATIONS. DEBRIS WILL BLOCK MOST ROADWAYS. MASS DEVASTATION IS HIGHLY LIKELY MAKING THE AREA UNRECOGNIZABLE TO SURVIVORS. TORNADO MAY BE UN-SURVIVABLE IF SHELTER IS NOT SOUGHT BELOW GROUND LEVEL.

The first version sounds a lot more clear and to the point, and based on observable facts ("significant damage to homes reported") and reasonable judgements ("life threatening situation").

The second version, however, is MORE wordy, and based far more on speculation about what MIGHT happen. If a warning of this type should be issued and NOT verify -- for example, because the tornado narrowly missed the populated area it appeared to be headed for, or because it turned out to be "only" an EF2 as opposed to an EF-4 or EF-5 -- it's only going to lead to further skepticism and warning fatigue.

The second version kind of reminds me of the famous Hurricane Katrina bulletin from NWS New Orleans warning that the impacted region would be "uninhabitable for weeks" and experience "human suffering incredible by modern standards." It's one thing to predict that with a massive hurricane but I don't know that you can really do the same with a tornado given the short-fuse nature of the event.

 

[Nick Hester]

These may need some tweaking but overall with yesterday's events I feel this is a good first step.

The added tags at the bottom and top can be a quick read for those who need it. If you need more information it is there. Seeing at least a few "Catastrophic" warnings put out for a sited 3/4 mile wide tornado that had a very long path.

I don't think this will particularly help the average person unless they are listening to NOAA Weather Radio or a broadcaster emphasizes these key things. It does help those reporting to the public. As mentioned unless you get those key wordings directly to the people and stress them, it's just another tornado warning for something 10 miles away. I think they are trying to shed that opinion with these enhanced warnings.

The key thing to know is that NOAA Weather Radio reads off the entire warning description. Uprooted trees and other info like that are nice but to an average person they want to know if they will have a home or town left. This spells it out in harsh detail and weather radio will benefit much more than before.

 

[Kelly Sugden]

Seeing a lot of complaining here. This was the first time ICT was able to use the experimental impact based warning wording/formatter. This is why 5 offices are doing this test... more importantly... was the warning received from the public and interpreted as "more serious"? This is something we will find out over the convective season.

 

[Kelly Sugden]

So how did we get from this (the top-tier warning wording in the original NWS Product Description):

(snip)

The second version kind of reminds me of the famous Hurricane Katrina bulletin from NWS New Orleans warning that the impacted region would be "uninhabitable for weeks" and experience "human suffering incredible by modern standards." It's one thing to predict that with a massive hurricane but I don't know that you can really do the same with a tornado given the short-fuse nature of the event.

Isn't that what happened in New Orleans... I'm *pretty* sure it was. I think the strong wording in that AFD was 100% appropriate.

 

[rdale]

Isn't that what happened in New Orleans... I'm *pretty* sure it was. I think the strong wording in that AFD was 100% appropriate.

But as I recall it only happened because of the levee failures... The wording from Katrina during the event was issued for the hurricane itself (many references to uninhabitable skyscrapers as I recall.)

Back on track - I think the experiment worked well. The bad part is that upgrades (especially to a TE) are not being sent as new warnings, they are just hidden in an SVS. So alerting systems are not able to take advantage of the info.

 

[beaudodson]

But as I recall it only happened because of the levee failures... The wording from Katrina during the event was issued for the hurricane itself (many references to uninhabitable skyscrapers as I recall.)

Back on track - I think the experiment worked well. The bad part is that upgrades (especially to a TE) are not being sent as new warnings, they are just hidden in an SVS. So alerting systems are not able to take advantage of the info.

This is a big mistake by the NWS. A lot of people have their weather radios to alert for tornado warnings only. I don't know why the NWS is not issuing a new tornado warning. Why is this not a priority? I know it has been brought up - I know there has been discussion. I know that there are a lot of NWS employees that agree.

It makes absolutely no sense and it is going to cost lives (or already has).

 

[Patrick Marsh]

This is a big mistake by the NWS. A lot of people have their weather radios to alert for tornado warnings only. I don't know why the NWS is not issuing a new tornado warning. Why is this not a priority? I know it has been brought up - I know there has been discussion. I know that there are a lot of NWS employees that agree.

It makes absolutely no sense and it is going to cost lives (or already has).

How do you know it is a big mistake? How do you know it is going to cost lives? Where are your data to back up these claims? Where are the studies conducted that examine this? I can construct plenty of counter examples where changing the system as you'd suggest would cause problems.

IN MY OPINION:
People continue to make simplistic arguments to solve an extremely complex problem, without data. As I put in my talk at Huntsville, "Can anyone tell me what the actual problem is?" I'm willing to bet that it isn't a single problem, rather a myriad of problems that we don't understand. I've seen several of posts on various social media sites, and received other contact in which people complained about the products saying they were somewhat confusing. I'm not saying we shouldn't eventually change things -- I'm a huge proponent of changing the warnings to more of a bullet (or tag) like format. I'm not even saying that we shouldn't have the options for enhanced wording (even though I personally am opposed to them). However, I'm not a proponent of putting untested solutions into operations -- especially when we don't know what we're trying to "fix" or what the blowback will be. Let's try to understand the problems and then try to solve them responsibly.

 

[beaudodson]

How do you know it is a big mistake? How do you know it is going to cost lives? Where are your data to back up these claims? Where are the studies conducted that examine this? I can construct plenty of counter examples where changing the system as you'd suggest would cause problems.

IN MY OPINION:
People continue to make simplistic arguments to solve an extremely complex problem, without data. As I put in my talk at Huntsville, "Can anyone tell me what the actual problem is?" I'm willing to bet that it isn't a single problem, rather a myriad of problems that we don't understand. I've seen several of posts on various social media sights, and received other contact in which people complained about the products saying they were somewhat confusing. I'm not saying we shouldn't eventually change things -- I'm a huge proponent of changing the warnings to more of a bullet (or tag) like format. I'm not even saying that we shouldn't have the options for enhanced wording (even though I personally am opposed to them). However, I'm not a proponent of putting untested solutions into operations -- especially when we don't know what we're trying to "fix" or what the blowback will be. Let's try to understand the problems and then try to solve them responsibly.

What is the point of issuing a tornado emergency in a severe weather statement? If we are going to encourage people to use NOAA Weather Radios or receive alerts for tornado warnings via text messaging - they are not going to receive the severe weather statement or the tornado emergency.

That is a problem in my mind and I know I am not alone in my concern on this topic.

If a tornado emergency is such a "big deal" then shouldn't it deserve to be tone alerted on? Isn't a tornado emergency just about the most extreme product an office can issue? Yet - it doesn't get a tone alert? Weird if you ask me.

Amber alert - toned.
Tornado emergency - no tone.

Makes sense to me.

It's not that there is a right or wrong - all of this is opinion. But what makes sense - in this particular case?

As far as studies go - the same studies that indicate issuing the tornado emergencies are going to help save lives or encourage people to take further actions.