National Weather Service Announces Unfortunate Tornado Warning Experiment

[Chad Ringley]

Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang has a write-up on the success of the SPC in forecasting this event, references Mike's blog and comments, and also speculates if no fatalities in KS were attributable to the enhanced warning text.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...well-messaged/2012/04/16/gIQADvDvLT_blog.html

 

[Chad Ringley]

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.

To be fair, I think the SPC forecasts days in advance highlighted the time frame without giving those details (which to the public, probably doesn't matter). They highlighted long tracked, strong-to-violent tornadoes, through the evening and overnight hours. The watches, PDS in nature, didn't expire until well into the night. So in this case, I do think this was communicated well.

 

[STexan]

Communicated well to you or I perhaps. But the idea that the watch time-frame was extended past the initial round will mean little to the "average" person who is not knowledgeable of the situation and weather. All they know is tornadoes were forecasted, tornadoes occurred, so end of story, danger over, NOAA was unsure of the time frame, no big deal. The "average citizen" needs a bit more explanation of the forecast. Note, I did not say a LOT more explanation so as to bore them or confuse them to turn it off, but a bit more to make sure they UNDERSTAND there may probably be TWO rounds of severe weather and the second round may come well after things calm down and seem to be over.

I don't know. Maybe it was well conveyed but if it was then there is a family in Woodward that either didn't understand or didn't care to heed the warning(s) or didn't have enough batteries to keep their radio on well past any possible loss of electricity during round 1.

 

[rdale]

Stexan - I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I don't think any areas got two rounds of tornadoes? Either way, I have yet to see anyone from the public say they ignored the evening tornado events just because they had storms earlier in the day.

 

[Chad Ringley]

But the idea that the watch time-frame was extended past the initial round will mean little to the "average" person who is not knowledgeable of the situation and weather. All they know is tornadoes were forecasted, tornadoes occurred, so end of story, danger over, NOAA was unsure of the time frame, no big deal.

Not true that the timing was unsure or that anything was extended. The watch for Woodward County was in effect from 525pm to 200am CDT. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/watch/ww0170.html

All the official communication from the NWS in Norman, the SPC, etc. highlighted the risk being from the late afternoon through the evening not just the day of, but several days prior.

The "average citizen" needs a bit more explanation of the forecast. Note, I did not say a LOT more explanation so as to bore them to turn it off, but a bit more to make sure they UNDERSTAND there may probably be TWO rounds of severe weather.

It's in the SPC Outlook text and watch discussion. So, if you say the general public doesn't consume that directly, that's fair. Most people consume that information via the media. Not sure if this was communicated well by the local OKC media, but more often than not, they do an outstanding job. In fact, most people complain their wall-to-wall coverage is too much. I'd be shocked if they didn't mention this in their coverage.

I don't believe the SPC, NWS in Norman, etc. could have done anything more with watches, warnings, etc. to prevent the tragedy in Woodward. The "unknown glitch" in the siren system and the fact that fatality risk goes way up with nighttime tornadoes had a lot more to do with it, IMHO.

 

[STexan]

That's my point. I sort of gathered from the reports I heard that they were more concerned with the convective afternoon/evening storms that were ongoing than any that might propagate along the frontal boundary many hours later. Woodward was surrounded by tornadoes earlier that late afternoon, but the one that bit them was not until after midnight with the frontal boundary. All I'm saying is the typical person will watch a round of tornados pass in their area on the evening news and assume the danger has passed if there is no mention of the fact that BTW, these storms had nothing to do with a frontal boundary that is still a 100 miles to the west. Anyway, I'll shut up and leave this subject alone from here on. I'm glad the outbreak was no more destructive than it was in other cities and towns and my condolences to those in Woodward who lost family/friends.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

The lack of fatalities does not mean the enhanced wording worked. Using logic like this, Tornado Emergencies should never have caught on because when it was first used peopled died. That means that tornado emergency had no effect, right?

Until people actually go out and work with people and ask why they did or did not seek shelter, we cannot attribute reasons to their actions. Here's a real example...

In northeast Oklahoma, an early morning tornado destroyed a mobile home. Fortunately, the family decided not to spend the night in the trailer because they had heard for days in advance how bad the situation could be overnight. That decision saved their lives. This decision was not based on enhanced wording of a tornado warning, it was based on the persistent message of the forecasts.

What's the point of this story? Until we go and interview a large number of people, we cannot determine if it was the days of notice ahead of time which prompted users to take warnings seriously, or the enhanced wording of a tornado warning that made a difference. Attributing motive to people's actions without doing this kind of study is premature and irresponsible.

This is my position. We do not know what is motivating people, and until we do, we can't be sure what the best course of action is.

 

[Chad Ringley]

In northeast Oklahoma, an early morning tornado destroyed a mobile home. Fortunately, the family decided not to spend the night in the trailer because they had heard for days in advance how bad the situation could be overnight. That decision saved their lives. This decision was not based on enhanced wording of a tornado warning, it was based on the persistent message of the forecasts.

I totally agree with your view, and I think it's more important that folks are motivated to act based on forecasts messages in the 1-3 day time range than warnings before impact. It's safer and more effective.

For the record, I was just re-posting the Capital Weather Gang's article, not agreeing with their speculation of lack of fatalities due to enhanced warning text (particularly since most never heard it). I believe it was the SPC and NWS's job the days prior that made the difference last Saturday.

 

[David Conaway]

STexan
"I don't know. Maybe it was well conveyed but if it was then there is a family in Woodward that either didn't understand or didn't care to heed the warning(s) or didn't have enough batteries to keep their radio on well past any possible loss of electricity during round 1."

This was one of my concerns when listening to the live coverage from a Woodward radio station. The radio station was pretty much giving the all clear for any more storms, much less tornadoes after the storms had moved northeat of that area during the early evening. They were indicating that thr dry line was moving east of their area and that they were going to be in the clear. Well, the dryline had started to retreat back to the West and when the cold front started to push to the East, convection rapidly developed just to the West of Woodward.

I don't believe that these were meteorologists at the station, but they were doing a good job during the afternoon by keeping the public informed regarding the storms in their area by running constant coverage. However, by that evening probably the public had thought that they were finished with the storms and let their guard down.