National Weather Service Announces Unfortunate Tornado Warning Experiment

[Patrick Marsh]

You still haven't proven to me that is necessarily a bad thing. Outside of 27 April 2011, not a single tornado emergency in 2011 verified with a violent tornado. So, are tornado emergencies only to be used for violent tornadoes? Or are they a way for the NWS to say "tornado confirmed"? The directives imply one thing, but (some) forecaster actions are implying another. When I ask NWS forecasters throughout the NWS (multiple regions), I get different answers. If the NWS isn't sure the purpose of tornado emergencies, how are average people supposed to know? And thus, maybe (or maybe not) it is a good thing it doesn't reach everyone.

(Note, this doesn't even account for the fact that the phrase "Tornado Emergency" is being used differently in 5 CWAs as compared to the rest of the country. After the DFW tornadoes, I saw several media stories that touted those tornado emergencies as implementation of the new "impacts based warnings" which is false.)

My stance is, let's do research on these things BEFORE we start messing around with the warning system. For example, can you honestly tell me that people won't become complacent with "ordinary" tornado warnings if tornado emergencies are new warnings? I know several people that have told me they wouldn't act until a tornado emergency was issued. Is this necessarily the behavior we want to entice from the public? I know several NWS MICs and WCMs who are worried their office is going to get called out by the media the next time an EF2/3 hits a town and a tornado emergency wasn't issued. These are my points.

Let's do the research and understand things before messing with the operational system.

 

[beaudodson]

You still haven't proven to me that is necessarily a bad thing. Outside of 27 April 2011, not a single tornado emergency in 2011 verified with a violent tornado. So, are tornado emergencies only to be used for violent tornadoes? Or are they a way for the NWS to say "tornado confirmed"? The directives imply one thing, but (some) forecaster actions are implying another. When I ask NWS forecasters throughout the NWS (multiple regions), I get different answers. If the NWS isn't sure the purpose of tornado emergencies, how are average people supposed to know? And thus, maybe (or maybe not) it is a good thing it doesn't reach everyone.

(Note, this doesn't even account for the fact that the phrase "Tornado Emergency" is being used differently in 5 CWAs as compared to the rest of the country. After the DFW tornadoes, I saw several media stories that touted those tornado emergencies as implementation of the new "impacts based warnings" which is false.)

My stance is, let's do research on these things BEFORE we start messing around with the warning system. For example, can you honestly tell me that people won't become complacent with "ordinary" tornado warnings if tornado emergencies are new warnings? I know several people that have told me they wouldn't act until a tornado emergency was issued. Is this necessarily the behavior we want to entice from the public? I know several NWS MICs and WCMs who are worried their office is going to get called out by the media the next time an EF2/3 hits a town and a tornado emergency wasn't issued. These are my points.

Let's do the research and understand things before messing with the operational system.

Oh - I am not saying we should have tornado emergencies (I have never been in favor of the use of the product). I am saying that IF you are going to have them and IF the NWS says that they help save lives and help people make a decision to take further action - then they should be tone alerted.

You asked about studies - I am basing this off the same studies that caused the NWS to test out these new warning products.

I think it is going to be prove to be difficult for meteorologists to issue impact based tornado warnings. They may work in some instances but just like "tornado emergencies" in the end I am not sure it will prove to be beneficial - consistently.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

It's good to see some testing being undertaken with respect to the new language. At this point it certainly can't hurt to see if there is any change in the response. Imo, this has always been a behavioral issue rather than a matter of course concerning the warning system. It seems the agencies involved are simply working to find reasonable solutions to a growing threat. The media holding agencies responsible for threat language used is regrettable, but a reality nonetheless. Liability issues alone make me wonder if this could end up becoming a can of worms. We're talking about natural disasters after all and the more men try to exercise control over these chaotic situations, the less control they will realize they truly have.

The problem is the same as it is in so many other things these days when it comes to the way people react to warnings. It's a lack of humility.

Since we're talking about the behavioral issues of the public concerning taking warnings seriously, why not take time to perform a self-evaluation? The fact is that if chasers were TRULY concerned about how the public perceives and acts on warnings, it would seem equally reasonable for the 'community' to see if there is anything it has done to contribute toward the situation existing in the first place and what it might do to improve it.

Honestly consider this for a minute. For the past 15 years and longer the public has been fed a steadily increasing diet of violent storm footage provided by many of our members here, at one time myself included. There are TV shows, clips almost every night on national news, docos, websites, galleries, YouTube videos, exhibitions, public events, and the list goes on and on. They've witnessed these powerful events through our eyes, watched as homes and buildings are lifted from their foundations and semi trucks fly hundreds of feet into the air. These are powerful images and they are bound to have a powerful effect.

I think I can honestly say I've noticed a shift in people's attitudes about storms since the 90s. People used to naturally have more fear and respect toward weather, but now it seems defined more by curiosity and an intense desire to witness things firsthand. Almost everyone I know now wants to see a tornado. They have been acclimated to the imagery and no longer fear tornadoes as much as they once did.

What accounts for this change?

Did it make anyone else feel really sad to hear about the lady in Indiana last month who filmed the tornado (for several minutes) that would later sweep over her home and kill her husband right in front of her? I remember thinking ... "why did they feel the need to do this? ... Why couldn't they have taken those precious minutes it took to make that video and just drive a couple of miles in any direction away from the tornado or go over to a neighbor's home with a basement? ... Did they really appreciate what this was as it headed straight toward them?" I really don't know and can't judge. All I do know is that for whatever reason, a video of a tornado was more important to them at the time.

The only conclusion I can honestly come to in all this is that none of us have the answers, least of all me. I'm not blaming anyone for things being the way they are, but it just seems healthy to be willing to take responsibility and recognize the part each of us plays as it is discussed. It seems reasonable to be humble.

 

[Mike Smith]

"Can anyone tell me what the actual problem is?"

Amen. Amen.

The impact-based warnings are misguided on several levels. Let me explain.

1) Yesterday, multiple PDS tornado watches were issued in Kansas. You did I learn? The fact the watches were PDS was never mentioned on the NWR stations to which I was listening! A PDS watch is quite actionable. If you have hours you could, for example, move heirlooms into the basement (because I felt there was a high level of threat to Wichita, we put some things in the basement before we left to storm chase). You could go to an earlier movie as a friend of mine did (he thought he might be called in later and was). When he got to the theatre, he and the other patrons were given a card with tornado procedures and policies! A fire department, for example, could use the time to put an extra person or two on standby or even call them in. PDS watches can make a difference in behavior.

2) I heard the new warnings on NWR. My wife, who is usually very mellow (we are opposites!), volunteered she thought they were far too wordy. Plus, the language was a turnoff to her because it was "too dramatic." By about the third, she was already tuning it out.

My objection is the impact-based warnings are not actionable. We want people do exactly the same thing whether it is an "ordinary" or "PDS" tornado warning.

So, the NWS does not differentiate PDS tornado warnings on NOAA Weather Radio (which are actionable) but does differentiate IB tornado warnings (which are not actionable).

Maybe this makes sense to you. It doesn't to me.

Keep warnings short, to the point, and repeat them often.

 

[Nick Hester]

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.

The Severe Weather Statements are supplementary to the existing or expiring warnings. While not everyone has them coded, most times these give an indication if a warning will continue until expiration or cancelled but still have a strong storm in the area. Looking though some of them I do not see any that indicate a tornado is imminent or existing. I think they are nice to have but if they have same codes assigned to them people will indeed become confused. When implemented I didn't like them however they are good information to those who don't get a weather report over the radio or tv every 15 minutes.

I don't think Tornado Emergency is a good term to have broadcasters to use except when a very large and certainly confirmed damages by spotters/local law enforcement or fire/ems. Not all can be confirmed on the ground but for a tornado that is confirmed to have a rotation over 1/2 mile with very strong winds (radar indicated EF3+) it would be expected to give additional weight. I don't live within the area so these MOST DEFINITELY should use the same codes as existing TOR.

It's good to see some testing being undertaken with respect to the new language. At this point it certainly can't hurt to see if there is any change in the response. Imo, this has always been a behavioral issue rather than a matter of course concerning the warning system.

I can tell you here in Ohio, people have been complacent at times regarding tornado warnings. They happen in Central Ohio often as storms converge as they move into hilly terrain. I know sirens here still go off county wide even if the threat is 10 miles north outside of the warning polygon. I know that is an EMA issue that is being worked. I know not every state/county has funds to update systems. Again to these areas any tornado warning is the same unless they are told differently. Most often it is a personal judgement call. If it is raining, windy and no hail someone may not seek shelter thinking it is "no where near me".

PDS watches could be useful. If they give no alert to the public they are useless as they are now and should be tweaked. Really I think the existing "Tornado Watch" should be enough to get people to stay alert. I know those don't throw any tones either, or at least the weather radio here in the home don't sound from it. Anything that gives the public more time to prepare for something to a very bad situation is good.

Did it make anyone else feel really sad to hear about the lady in Indiana last month who filmed the tornado (for several minutes) that would later sweep over her home and kill her husband right in front of her? I remember thinking ... "why did they feel the need to do this? ... Why couldn't they have taken those precious minutes it took to make that video and just drive a couple of miles in any direction away from the tornado or go over to a neighbor's home with a basement? ... Did they really appreciate what this was as it headed straight toward them?" I really don't know and can't judge. All I do know is that for whatever reason, a video of a tornado was more important to them at the time.

People see the images and see how close others get and think something such as a piece of straw can't be thrown a half mile and end up in a telephone pole, let alone hitting someone. You hit it right on the head when it comes to how people think about it all and how we become desensitized.

Ask a majority here, severe thunderstorm warnings don't hold much weight other than strong winds and possible dinged up cars. They should be taken more seriously but people are still outside, doing what they wish instead of being safe. Spring and summer lots of storms "seem severe" and more so with heavy lightning. Unless people perceive the storm is very bad they don't seemed to be phased. People don't realize the strength of straight line winds. We have them far more often during severe storms yet the only time people are reminded are when large trees go down or the news reports several barns had collapsed/had roofs taken off by winds.





I think this is a good step regardless. There will always be the threat of "overwarning". I think warnings need to be enforced more often as well as with the additional indicators are great. This happens to make warnings easier to be a quick read as well as more weight on them. I think they should be short so people can get moving not listening if their county/area has another warning. Otherwise that large rare tornado like weeks ago in West Liberty could be the one that people think is in another part of the storm. I agree on all parts this should be based on actual science and foundation before we make it nationwide.

 

[beaudodson]

Amen. Amen.

My objection is the impact-based warnings are not actionable. We want people do exactly the same thing whether it is an "ordinary" or "PDS" tornado warning.

Keep warnings short, to the point, and repeat them often.

The tornado that killed 5 people in Oklahoma - was that a tornado emergency?

On another note - I wish people/meteorologists would stop using the terminology - "small tornadoes" - somehow this implies that people need to somehow react differently than an "ordinary" tornado.

I agree Mike.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

The tornado that killed 5 people in Oklahoma - was that a tornado emergency?

Are you asking if a tornado emergency was issued? That answer is "no".

Are you asking if one should have been issued? My opinion is "no".

Are you asking if a tornado, moving through a populated area at night is an emergency? I'd respond that *all* tornadoes are emergencies if you're the one who gets hit.

 

[beaudodson]

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.

I don't see this as complaining. I see this as a great conversation on the test. This is the kind of conversation that needs to be carried on - imo.

 

[beaudodson]

Are you asking if a tornado emergency was issued? That answer is "no".

Are you asking if one should have been issued? My opinion is "no".

Are you asking if a tornado, moving through a populated area at night is an emergency? I'd respond that *all* tornadoes are emergencies if you're the one who gets hit.

It was rhetorical - actually

I was trying to make a point.

 

[Elaine Spencer]

are tornado emergencies only to be used for violent tornadoes?

Of course not. I would say that tornado emergencies are intended to warn of potentially significant tornadoes that are threatening a heavily populated area. "Significant" as I understand it means EF2 or higher or causing death or serious injury.

The fact that a large wedge tornado which hits a medium/large size city and for which a TE is issued turns out to be "only" EF2 as opposed to EF4-5, does not (to me) mean the TE was unverified or not warranted. It simply means that community was fortunate and dodged a bullet!

That said, it should not (and I hope it does not) become the default warning for ANY tornado confirmed by spotters or other ground observers.

 

[Chad Ringley]

1) Yesterday, multiple PDS tornado watches were issued in Kansas. You did I learn? The fact the watches were PDS was never mentioned on the NWR stations to which I was listening! A PDS watch is quite actionable. If you have hours you could, for example, move heirlooms into the basement (because I felt there was a high level of threat to Wichita, we put some things in the basement before we left to storm chase). You could go to an earlier movie as a friend of mine did (he thought he might be called in later and was). When he got to the theatre, he and the other patrons were given a card with tornado procedures and policies! A fire department, for example, could use the time to put an extra person or two on standby or even call them in. PDS watches can make a difference in behavior.

I agree completely with you here. The PDS watches need to be highlighted not just on NWR, but with media outlets, via social media, etc. as they are very important in making a difference. People tend to act when told days in advance that the risk is there and that its more dire than usual. They change their personal plans, are much more likely to be informed at public events, etc...all on time scales much longer than a typical warning.

We have clearly advanced to the point where we can highlight events like this well in advance. The SPC nailed the type of threat and the impacted area a week in advance, and these forecasts were available to the public on their extended range forecasts. Not all signals are this clear, but even so, the high-end events like Saturday are clear enough for multi-day risk highlighting and should be emphasized even more than it is now.

My objection is the impact-based warnings are not actionable. We want people do exactly the same thing whether it is an "ordinary" or "PDS" tornado warning.

Keep warnings short, to the point, and repeat them often.

I do disagree with you here. We, as a community, should never marginalize ANY tornado warning, as all tornadoes are dangerous...(and there's a fine line to walk to prevent that from happening). That said, when you have a supercell tracking for hundreds of miles, spawning multiple large tornadoes that have done damage, you must highlight it so it isn't perceived as being "ordinary" or "run of the mill". I like the enhanced wording in the warning (if not slightly dramatic) and it gets the point across that what is about to affect you is abnormal.

I particularly like the "you may not survive this if not below ground" statement. Why? Think about the tragedy in West Liberty, KY from earlier this year. A family abandons a single-wide trailer for what they perceive to be a "sturdier" shelter, just like the current warning text advises you to do. The sturdier shelter was a double-wide trailer, made to resemble a house from the outside but fundamentally made of the same material. They didn't survive. Could a difference had been made if the warning text was more severe? You could make a case for it.

And if you think about it, if the watches and extended range risks mentioned above are communicated effectively, these enhanced warnings just drive that extra point home that you should act. The totality of the entire "watch/warn" process has a higher chance of working, IMHO.

 

[Jordan Bell]

This thread is full of great discussion. I thought I would throw in my opinion. I do have a couple points; I would like to hit on.

-I am in favor of the stronger language that the NWS is experimenting with. However, I believe that the experiment should have been directed more towards the media and emergency management directors. When a tornado warning is issued and sirens go off most of the general public go right to the TV. Most of the general public does not read the warning text. This new wording allows TV and radio meteorologists to then in turn translate how serious the situation is to the public. If you watched Dave Freeman during the Greensburg event (yes that storm did not have this experiment, but it did have the strongly worded TE) and especially the other night for the ICT event, as the wording got stronger in the warnings, his tone got more serious and more forceful. He remained calm, but translated the seriousness of the situation; in the manner most would respond by taking action. I am also guessing that all ICT mets did this. Especially since the storm had reports of a large wedge tornado.

-It would be interesting to ask the people affected by the storm why took action this time. What if that stronger language had not been issued? Would they have taken shelter if the warning texts were not as strong? Would the TV/Radio meteorologists responded in the more serious nature of their coverage? What would be the potential death toll today had the stronger wording not been issued.

-As far as any downside I see with the experiment is the general public reading the warning text that is not as strongly worded and not taking action. Had the NWS geared the project more towards the media and emergency management, the general public would not have even known about a modification to the warning text.

-My last point is, I agree with Mike Smith. We have to keep the warnings short and to the point. Someone else mentioned bullet points. Today’s society is very busy and does not have time to a whole warning text. That would keep it short and simple for the general public to read them as well as allowing the media to quickly get the pertinent information out.

Just my $0.02. I don’t know enough about how the Weather Radio process works, so I will refrain commenting on that process.

 

[rdale]

I particularly like the "you may not survive this if not below ground" statement.

Just to avoid errors in paraphrasing - that is wrong. You are more likely to survive in an above-ground safe room than below-ground basement. Just make sure that clarification continues

I believe that the experiment should have been directed more towards the media and emergency management directors.

That is the specific audience. It was made clear that this is not intended for the general public.

 

[Mike Johnston]

J



That is the specific audience. It was made clear that this is not intended for the general public.

It may not be intended for the general public, but it looks like the info may be getting out to the general public through the media. For example, a TV station in Wichita covering the Saturday night storm used the words "catastrophic warning" which likely was gleaned from the warning tag. Anyway, the warnings themselves in the new format, tags and all, are right there for anyone to read. I seriously doubt we're going back to the pre-1950's era when the NWS was against giving out tornado information to the public. It's going to get out to the public one way or another.

 

[rdale]

Correct - that is the intention. Everyone recognizes that there is just a small population of the general public (5% or less) that gets the info direct from NWS, and I'd put the number that read an entire warning at less than 1%. So the experiment is geared towards EM & Media to relay that information.