National Weather Service Announces Unfortunate Tornado Warning Experiment

[Patrick Marsh]

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.

Numerous people survived the 03 May 1999 OKC tornado above ground...and this tornado has been the benchmark for all violent tornadoes since. So saying "you may not survive this if not below ground" is extreme hyperbole. Furthermore, if you say this, someone who does not below ground shelter may give up hope and not take action since he won't survive anyways. This is not the action we want them to take. We want them to continue to seek the best shelter they can as to give them the best chances of survival.

Note, I'm not even touch the more obvious argument of knowing a tornadoes intensity as a tornado is on going. Just because you have a large tornado, doesn't mean it's going to be violent.

 

[Mike Smith]

\
I do disagree with you here. We, as a community, should never marginalize ANY tornado warning, as all tornadoes are dangerous.

Actually, you are agreeing with me. That is why I've always been against "tornado emergency" messages and I'm against the new warning types. All tornadoes are dangerous! By putting out TE's and tiered warnings we risking giving the impression the "ordinary" warnings are less important. Plus, we do not have the science to do it consistently well as Patrick's research has proven.

 

[Chad Ringley]

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 thought paraphrasing allowed for some levity! Of course you can survive above ground in a safe-room, I was referring to the statement where those words were crafted.

 

[Chad Ringley]

Numerous people survived the 03 May 1999 OKC tornado above ground...and this tornado has been the benchmark for all violent tornadoes since. So saying "you may not survive this if not below ground" is extreme hyperbole. Furthermore, if you say this, someone who does not below ground shelter may give up hope and not take action since he won't survive anyways. This is not the action we want them to take. We want them to continue to seek the best shelter they can as to give them the best chances of survival.

Note, I'm not even touch the more obvious argument of knowing a tornadoes intensity as a tornado is on going. Just because you have a large tornado, doesn't mean it's going to be violent.

No warning text is going to be a "one-size fits all". In all probability, even folks who are directly impacted by such tornadoes, in the outskirts of the circulation or other flows associated with the tornado, will probably survive above ground.

But you hit the nail on the head when you referred to action, and I think here we, and a lot of folks in this thread, just have different perceptions on possible action taken by the users of the warning. Where I see the higher likelihood that more folks will take action with stronger wording, you see folks taking less action because they can't "get below ground". Neither view is wrong, and without a detailed survey of end users, is unknowable. For me personally, I'd like to believe the enhanced wording spurs more action than it deters.

And as far as knowing tornado intensity, your absolutely right. You have to use a lot of caution when you pull these out. I think the best scenario that best fits is a long-tracked tornado, confirmed visually by spotters, with reports of damage, headed for a populated area.

 

[Chad Ringley]

Actually, you are agreeing with me. That is why I've always been against "tornado emergency" messages and I'm against the new warning types. All tornadoes are dangerous! By putting out TE's and tiered warnings we risking giving the impression the "ordinary" warnings are less important. Plus, we do not have the science to do it consistently well as Patrick's research has proven.

Well, I totally get what your saying here and it's a very valid point. It should be taken very seriously as there is a danger to marginalize tornado warnings by creating these tiers. You could, however, make the same argument for regular vs. PDS watches. But we are in agreement this system works and should be promoted further. And your saying that there isn't enough of a time window or predictability to create this differential on the warning scale, right? And that is your major issue with it?

So let me ask you this...are you ok with media outlets jumping to this conclusion, if it is not coming officially from the NWS in warning text? For example, the language used by Gary England on 3 May 1999, or is that an over-reach as well? Same risk there (marginalizing warnings), but as Patrick mentioned, 3 May 1999 IS the standard, so I am curious as to your thoughts.

 

[Jordan Bell]

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

My error on not seeing the intended target in the reading. Unfortunately it went mainstream and then went it went mainstream, even the national media got it wrong.

 

[Mike Johnston]

RDale,

My point is the full warning message is being communicated as it always has been. The format and language have been changed in the experimental areas, but it's not as if the public doesn't have the same access as it had before. Whether 5% or 1% read the message directly isn't really the point; it will get dissimenated like it always has but now the media may very well latch on to words like "catastropic impact." The real question is whether the new format adds value in terms of warning the public.

My concern is that the tiers may be putting warning coordinators in a box, with pressures to classify a tornado in terms of impact when they might not have the skill to do that consistently. I think just conveying the warning in ordinary English language text, without the necessity of filling in the boxes to fit some pre-determined bureaucratic classification, is still the most optimal, practical way to get out a warning.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

But you hit the nail on the head when you referred to action, and I think here we, and a lot of folks in this thread, just have different perceptions on possible action taken by the users of the warning. Where I see the higher likelihood that more folks will take action with stronger wording, you see folks taking less action because they can't "get below ground". Neither view is wrong, and without a detailed survey of end users, is unknowable. For me personally, I'd like to believe the enhanced wording spurs more action than it deters.

I have heard anecdotal stories of people who did nothing because they were told they wouldn't survive if they are below ground. This is what I'm using to base my argument. No, it isn't something that everyone will do, but some will.

 

[Nick Smith]

I could be wrong, but I think the Watch County Notification Message is being used to generate the watch message for NWR, which doesn't specify if the watch is PDS or not (at least from what I've seen).

 

[Mike Smith]

Well, I totally get what your saying here and it's a very valid point. It should be taken very seriously as there is a danger to marginalize tornado warnings by creating these tiers. You could, however, make the same argument for regular vs. PDS watches. But we are in agreement this system works and should be promoted further. And your saying that there isn't enough of a time window or predictability to create this differential on the warning scale, right? And that is your major issue with it?

So let me ask you this...are you ok with media outlets jumping to this conclusion, if it is not coming officially from the NWS in warning text? For example, the language used by Gary England on 3 May 1999, or is that an over-reach as well? Same risk there (marginalizing warnings), but as Patrick mentioned, 3 May 1999 IS the standard, so I am curious as to your thoughts.

Yes, there have been PDS watches that have not verified. But, I'm willing to take that risk because of the benefit: the watches are actionable. PDS/TE warnings are not, in part because of the time element. We also have skill at separating potentially big tornado days from lesser ones. See: http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-did-those-maxed-out-probability.html

My second objection is we do not have the scientific knowledge to do this on the warning scale! My point was proven Saturday evening when neither of the TE's issued by the ICT NWS verified. Conway Springs (TE) was supposed to get catastrophic damage but was untouched! Now that the NWS took them to "DEFCON 3" and nothing happened what will they do if they get an 'ordinary' tornado warning next time? East Wichita also got DEFCON 3 but got F-1 and F-0 damage.

A new objection is the warnings are way, way, way too wordy. I didn't hear any of these warnings read on television or commercial radio (only NWR). And, exactly why we need to hear about golfball-sized hail when (supposedly) a tornado with "catastrophic" damage is approaching is a mystery to me.

The Wichita Eagle has a good article this morning about peoples' sheltering decisions. www.kansas.com/2012/04/16/2299715/going-to-shelter-not-an-easy-decision.html Note the new warnings are not mentioned as a factor.

I wish the NWS would call this off. People don't call the police for car alarms any more because there is little correlation between a car alarm sounding and a car being stolen. A few more of these unverified TE's and we will desensitize people to "ordinary" tornado warnings.

 

[Chad Ringley]

The Wichita Eagle has a good article this morning about peoples' sheltering decisions. www.kansas.com/2012/04/16/2299715/going-to-shelter-not-an-easy-decision.html Note the new warnings are not mentioned as a factor.

Thanks for the link to the article, it's a wonderful article...fascinating and thought provoking. I always take for granted the side effects of taking shelter, particularly early, in the warning process...and how a missed warning (which may not be missed, but to the end user, would be unless directly hit) may disenfranchise someone from doing it in the future (when it may really matter). It seems part of the issue at hand is that the warning process crosses over into the social sciences, and that's the difficulty.

Some folks who chose to wait to go to shelter appeared to be weather aware, and just simply chose to wait. The age old question...when have we, as a community, done enough? The risk probabilities were there several days in advance. The watches came out early with strong wording. Local events are cancelled, likely was the talk of the town, it's on the front page of the Wichita Eagle, etc. Makes you wonder if these folks had actually heard the enhanced warning text, if it would have made a difference at all. I mean, to the end user, aren't all tornadoes life threatening capable of "catastrophic" damage?

 

[Mike Smith]

The age old question...when have we, as a community, done enough?

Makes you wonder if these folks had actually heard the enhanced warning text, if it would have made a difference at all. I mean, to the end user, aren't all tornadoes life threatening capable of "catastrophic" damage?

#1. Meteorology has done enough when we have clearly communicated the risk. People have to make their own decisions and we cannot take responsibility for those decisions.

#2. Doubtful, especially since they are so wordy. And, when we miss a "catastrophic" warning (as we did, twice, in the ICT area Saturday) we give those who tend to rationalize not taking shelter more weight to a "non shelter" decision.

 

[Karen St John]

Somebody should open an underground Internet cafe as a shelter; wifi, big screen TV, a cell phone boost, coffee... "Lattes with a Twister". Same idea could be applied with a sports bar.

I'm not just making a wry joke...I used to work for an international corporation that offers printing and shipping services demand. I had a small shop. During tornado warnings, if I did not shut off the power to the machinery, people would continue copying blithely, even though the siren was literally 100 meters away, and expect me or my team to not seek shelter.

Meanwhile, the local PBS station would broadcast the warnings, then continue with smooth jazz. It was surreal.

Warnings are going to have to be disruptive, not distracting. Maybe shelters will have to be made convenient with services? We cannot pull ourselves away from our activities, it would seem. Too much to lose if we pull ourselves away from our precious screen time?

SE Michigan is not in the Alley, but tornadoes are common enough to preclude ignorance, and the EF3 that we had just up the road, literally, made a very noticeable mess. Plus, the Ann Arbor area, where I live and work, is one of the most educated populaces on Earth. One might suppose prudence when one is imperilled, but...?

 

[STexan]

I think a lot of the problem lies in the reality that sometime tornado outbreaks come in phases. As with the April 15 outbreak in OK for instance we had the late afternoon tornadoes and cells, and these passed and all was relatively quiet for several hours, then the frontal boundary comes ... Little emphasis is placed on this event as it relates to the bigger picture of all the ingredients (phases) coming and going, so after the initial convective round passes and things calm down, and bedtime comes many assume the "storm event so much talked about" has came and gone so it's safe to go to bed and turn off the TV. A few families in Woodward, OK can say this sometimes isn't the case.

Perhaps noaa and the news outlets could do a better job of describing how a particular storm event time-frame may actually transpire ... convective storms first, then a 2-3 hours lag before the frontal boundary storms arrive, and both need to be given serious consideration by those in the region. Just my two cents.

 

[Mike Phelps]

When I first heard this I too was skeptical of how effective it would be. However, having heard the new enhances warning wording used in real life this past Saturday in Wichita, KS, I have to say that I feel it was quite effective in conveying the seriousness of that particular event. I was listening to KFDI radio and the warning was read over the air by Dan Dillon. The warning definitely conveyed the seriousness of the situation, and to be honest, it gave me chills. Much depends on the radio or television talent reading the warning and how weather savvy the viewing or listening public is. In the case of Wichita on Saturday night and on KFDI radio, the enhanced wording IMO was quite effective. Given the same situation in another market and another radio station, however, it may not have been nearly as powerful.