NOAA weather Radio

"Again, the forward storm motions alone should have caused some alert to any meteorologist with responsibility on that shift."

Not sure I can connect the dots... Because the storms were moving quickly, we should assume a greater risk of F3's dropping?
 
ya...

moving eastward at extremely high speeds. Reflectivity indicated the cells were robust and, if anything, strengthening rather than weakening. While there was an overall indication of linear consolidation, there were scores of persistent mesocylone signatures on the nose of these convective bands.

There are plenty of cases of fast, isolated cells which never produce F3s. In addition, the occurence of mesocyclones doesn't neccesarily mean tornadoes . Many times, the storms remain elevated and never establash a meso at the surface. Convection is often elevated in association with the LLJ.

Aaron
 
Umm, yes, RDale, when there was indication of mesoscale rotation all over the storm front, for several hours, and storms are screaming along at 70mph - at night, during an unseasonable time of the year, and the mid and upper level dynamics were progressivley intensifying in support - yes, I think there was plenty of indication of heightened risk.
 
I mentioned the possibility of a "few violent tornadic supercells" in my morning analysis post in the FCST thread... This was primarily said towards southern/central IL. Here is the original, in complete full form, the outlook graphic I generated FRI night before I left for Springfield:

http://midwestchase.com/november_sat_outlook2.jpg

I highlighted eastcentral MO into southwest IN in a "sig" risk -- with "isld supercells" all the way northeast of Indianapolis and then back southward towards Louisville. To be honest, I think SPC could have issued a MDT based on wind/hail potential (easily could have warranted a 25% hatched/35% across IL) and still kept the broad 5% TOR risk. I pretty much thought that supercells would form over eastern MO shortly before sunset (which they did) and then rapidly transform into a line afterdark with embedded mesocyclones and isolated tornadoes. Was I surprised that a significant/killer tornado struck southwest IN? Nope... Would I have issued a HIGH risk and PDS watch? Nope... But I would have issued a MDT risk based on wind/hail potential with wording for a strong tornado possible should sfc-based thunderstorms sustain themselves (for the MO/IL/IN area -- as noted in the original graphic I produced FRI night).
 
I mentioned the possibility of a "few violent tornadic supercells" in my morning analysis post in the FCST thread...

That is my point. To say that no one could have predicted this, it was a freak event, that the risk factors just weren't there, is an absolute cop-out. The dynamics of this setup may not have been completely "self-evident" but were evident enough to have warranted much, much more attention from the traditional sources of information that the general public relies upon. Apologize for the performance of TWC and others all day long, RDale (and I recall you were one promoting a bill to just drop all raw weather data into private hands), but there were some real shortfalls in analysis, prediction and public warning here.
 
"when there was indication of mesoscale rotation all over the storm front, for several hours, and storms are screaming along at 70mph - at night"

Ummm, okay. Why didn't they produce tornadoes the rest of the night when they looked just as bad and were moving just as fast? Why didn't we get tornadoes last night in a similar setup? Was there a tornado threat? Sure. Was it worthy of a TOR box at the onset? I (and SPC) don't believe so.

"The dynamics of this setup may not have been completely "self-evident" but were evident enough to have warranted much, much more attention from the traditional sources of information that the general public relies upon."

What does that mean? There's nothing to indicate that local TV stations did not play up the sevwx threat unless you saw something that you haven't posted about.

"Apologize for the performance of TWC"

? Where did TWC come into this?

"and I recall you were one promoting a bill to just drop all raw weather data into private hands"

Wow, talk about taking a comment out of context in order to make your "point"? That was not what I said.

"but there were some real shortfalls in analysis, prediction and public warning here."

Thankfully we have your 20/20 hindsight! No way that could ever be wrong...

- Rob
 
Not meaning to pick an argument here, RDale, but I do believe it was you posting very vigorously that private firms should be given raw data out of the gate, at no cost, and prior to any NWS analysis. Then - what - we just rely on Accuweather, TWC and all the other private concerns to protect the public? Then, in the thread about the TWC's completely dropping the ball on this system, you posted comments completely absolving them of any responsibility at all; they are a private concern, they can post garden weather, ski weather or whatever they would like even while a severe weather event is ongoing and, well, according to you, that's just the way it is, accept it, and no comment is warranted.

All I was suggesting in my original post was that all risk factors should be taken into account. Again, I don't know how closely you were following this system in real time, but rotating supercells traversing the land at 70+ mph, over a course of several hours - come on, it didn't take a huge leap of logic to suggest a heigtened level of risk here.
 
I guess if you want to be an apologist and say "no one could have seen this coming", then why even bother to forecast or suggest improvements in forecasting? This may have seemed like a freak tragedy, but I believe there are elements of prevention which should have been incorporated.

I never suggested the event was wholly unforecast - I just agree with SPC that the likelihood of the event unfolding as it did was quite small from the model and observational guidance leading up to the event. even as the event unfolded, indications were that the cells, while rotating, were likely not rooted in the boundary layer. It was as the cells entered a relative plume in low-level moisture that the transition occurred, and ideally the forecasters would have been wary of how the storms would react as they approached this - but the response was more reactionary than anticipatory.

Experienced forecasters know to look for an evolution in damaging wind reports to indicate trends to lowering storm inflow layers - but if you look at the storm reports there is a lack of wind reports prior to the storms becoming tornadic. This may also be due to issues with storm spotter network sparcity in the region. Regardless, as already noted, storm motion does not translate directly to storm severity - and in some cases can suggest the opposite, as in the storm inflow likely is elevated with faster storm motions.

Hindcasts are easy, nowcasts are somewhat challenging at times, but true forecasting can be very difficult to have consistent success.

Glen
 
"but I do believe it was you posting very vigorously that private firms should be given raw data out of the gate, at no cost, and prior to any NWS analysis."

No, I said that the NWS should not compete with the private sector on things that are not for the "good of the whole" like predicting length of time where RH > 70% for a day.

"you posted comments completely absolving them of any responsibility at all"

Correct. They have no obligation to interrupt national programming for a tornado in EVV. They run the crawl, the EVV viewers are alerted, and the lack of Stu Ostro or whoever does not mean they dropped the ball.

"but rotating supercells traversing the land at 70+ mph, over a course of several hours - come on, it didn't take a huge leap of logic to suggest a heigtened level of risk here."

Sure there is a heightened level of risk. There was a watch out, and the warnings were issued with ample time, and the local TV stations were going wall-to-wall, so I'm not sure how issuing a TOR box based on lack of TOR reports would have changed anything. Look at yesterday - TOR box issued with a grand total of one storm and 0 tornadoes. Was it a good idea? Based on the available info? Sure. A mistake? In hindsight, yes.

- Rob
 
RDale wrote:

"They have no obligation to interrupt national programming for a tornado in EVV."

I just disagree. True, they have no legal obligation, but an enterprise whose fundamental mission is 24-hour weather coverage, to me, has an obligation to alert viewers when the weather becomes so severe that life or property is threatened. As with different learning styles, there are different observational styles. The fact is - for many folks - hearing a human voice posting an alert gives a more heightened sense of viligence.

The other flaw in your defense of TWC is an implied assumption that extremely current news is at odds with "regular programming." The fact is - it doesn't have to be that way. There is another model that TWC could stand to learn from: the business channel CNBC. CNBC probably runs five times as much regular programming, interviews and general topical news in a 24-hour cycle than TWC does, still getting plenty of time in for their sponsors. However, CNBC has a system in place where a significant business news event interrupts regular programming at a moment's notice. There is no reason TWC cannot do the same when it comes to weather. Fact is, someone was asleep behind the wheel on TWC the other night, or the organization fostered a sleepy environment.

The argument that they simply don't care about severe weather over the heartland is false - if they didn't, then why were they orienting their program around last Saturday's events for the subsequent 3 days? They kept a great vigil last night, but yesterday's setup was not at all the same as last Saturday's, from any objective analysis.

I'm not sure what your motivation is to defend the sanctity of private weather services, and at the same time apologize for their lack of performance. I guess if you're satsified that 23 deaths was just a freak event, couldn't have been mitigated, that's your opinion. I believe the system could have performed better.
 
Folks,
If you are going to criticize the private sector performance, you better criticize the NWS. Fact: There was no tornado watch in effect at the time of the EVV tornado. Fact: The NWS did not activate the tone-alert weather radios (see below).

I don't understand why so many seem to like to jump on the private sector (and don't understand how the Santorum bill got into this discussion). But, the NWS performance during this event was far from flawless. Article follows.
Mike

Some weather radios silent during storm

*By JIMMY NESBITT Courier & Press staff writer 464-7501 or [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>*
*November 9, 2005*

Some families who had weather radios programmed to wake them up in an emergency never got the alarm Sunday morning.

The National Weather Service in Paducah, Ky., issued a tornado warning at 1:49 a.m. for Vanderburgh County. Meteorologists called the Indiana State Police and Emergency Management Director Sherman Greer to make sure he got the warning.

But the weather radios that receive a 1050 Hertz tone stayed silent, including the receiver at the City-County Dispatch, which is tested weekly.

National Weather Service meteorologist Rick Shanklin said a software glitch was a possibility, but investigators have not determined the cause. They also believe a transmitter in Evansville may have malfunctioned, he said. "It's something complicated that we really have to dig into to find it," Shanklin said. "It is very high priority, and we're doing everything we can to figure out exactly what it is. The 1050 tone is important to us because we know a lot of people have it." Those who had digital weather radios got the warning, Shanklin said. The digital radios, which were introduced about six years ago, can be programmed to give warnings for only one county, whereas older radios give warnings for an entire region.

Even if the older radios had worked, they might not have saved lives because the storm developed so quickly, said JoAnne Smith, Central Dispatch director. The tornado spawned around 1:45 a.m. two miles north of Smith Mills in Henderson County, Ky. It plowed through Ellis Park and raced over the Ohio River at speeds of 50 to 60 mph, nearly a mile a minute. The tornado reached Eastbrook Mobile Home Park within 15 minutes. Eighteen people at the mobile home park died, and more than 200 were injured. Hundreds of homes were either damaged or destroyed. Residents there who got the warning had little time to seek shelter or escape, Smith said. The weather sirens in Vanderburgh County were activated twice, at 1:49 a.m. and 1:59 a.m. At 1:40 a.m., WEHT-News25 chief meteorologist Wayne Hart told viewers the tornado may hit southern Evansville. The National Weather Service already had issued a tornado warning for Henderson and Posey counties.

"They could have thrown Evansville into that first warning," Hart said. "They may have thought that it was going to stay south of the river."

Although people should rely on more than one resource to warn them of severe storms, weather radios are just as important as smoke alarms, he said. Hart compared the problem to "having a fire, and your smoke detector doesn't work."

Weather sirens are intended to warn people outside their homes to take shelter. Greer said all of Vanderburgh County's sirens worked Sunday morning. Tornadoes "can happen in a matter of minutes and some of them in a matter of seconds," he said. "We got about a 10- to 15-minute warning here." The wind reached a top speed of around 200 mph, making it an F3 tornado on the Fujita scale. The thundering wind and heavy rain muffled weather sirens in Warrick County, said Lt. Bob Irvin of the Sheriff's Department.
 
Mike Smith, make no mistake about it - the original intent of my post was simply to suggest a broader definition of "risk" when it comes to SPC watch definitions. I made a thesis that the PDS risk category should be re-defined to incorporate target risk factors (time of day, population density, etc,) as well as meteorological factors. Understand, when the SPC talks, the locals listen here in the south!! It is not a matter of an unaware distribution system, it is just an underfunded and less functionally-alert system, so when we are given the "big alert", our local mets listen, and our local news anchors listen.

My one and only disappointment was with the performance of TWC itself last Saturday night! I just believe it dropped the ball, and perhaps the normal "tide" of commercial influences disrupted what could have been - and should have been - an alert and diligent mode.

I watched both you and Dennis Smith for many years back in Wichita. If something in the atmosphere warranted intervention, you obviously had the authority to intervene any commercial program - including NBC, and that is important. Believe me, in the southeast, if either a public or private source sounded the alarm bell in a synoptically-evident severe weather situation (which I believe was obvious 9 hours in advance), the folks will listen! I just hate to see commercial weather services getting so "structured" in their programming that there is no short-fuse mechanism in place to intervene.

Believe me, this isn't a public vs. private issue. It's a performance issue.
 
Folks,
If you are going to criticize the private sector performance, you better criticize the NWS. Fact: There was no tornado watch in effect at the time of the EVV tornado. Fact: The NWS did not activate the tone-alert weather radios (see below).

.....
The National Weather Service in Paducah, Ky., issued a tornado warning at 1:49 a.m. for Vanderburgh County. Meteorologists called the Indiana State Police and Emergency Management Director Sherman Greer to make sure he got the warning....
Those who had digital weather radios got the warning, Shanklin said.....

Mike S.,

If you are going to come in and bash the NWS performance, again, how about backing up where the private sector was on top of the situation? Where is the private sector tornado watch box? Did your company have focused alerts out on tornado potential in the EVV area? What about any other private company? If you can't show that the private sector can do better - then really, what's the point in bashing the NWS where they made mistakes? Yes - they made a mistake in hindsight - and as you noted, and was brought up earlier in the thread, the 1050 tone apparently failed during the warning (is the NWS to blaim for this though, or local EM's? This is still under investigation) - but how would the private industry have overcome this? There is no private infrastructure in place that would have overcome this that I'm aware of.

The root problem here is atmospheric predictability - and how it can consistently be better done. Recognizing that the system is flawed is nothing new - but there is yet a realistic solution proposed. We know significant tornado events are rare - particularly in November at 2 am in the morning in southern IN. The climatological probabilities of this event occuring are minuscule - but obviously not zero.

So do you overhype every event for what *might* happen, or just tell it like it is, as SPC did, and suggest the likelihood of a tornado was very small, and leave it up to the local offices to assess the shorter time and space scale risks via warnings. The local NWS office did issue a tornado warning - a respectable amount of time (~10 minutes) prior to the tornado actually touching down. Suggesting the system was a failure here on the gov't side is rather crass. And no, I don't work for the NWS.

Glen
 
My last comment:

Mike (Johnston): Just because there rotation with a storm does NOT mean that a tornado warning should be issued! There is, by definition, rotation with EVERY single supercell, elevated or not. We know that elevated supercells have essentially no chance of producing ground circulation, so elevated supercells, while perhaps having strong rotation on radar, do NOT usually get tornado warned. If you warn for EVERY rotation couplet you see on radar, you will have to warn for every supercell. I will guarantee the following outcome from this:

1. Folks with weather radios will turn them off after the 20th consecutive tornado warning this goes completely unverified. Those without weather radios certainly will not want to get one if they know tornado warnings will set them off so often. Complacency about the warning and the response to it, which is already a problem (as noted in the original few posts of this thread), will only get worse as the False Alarm Rate skyrockets.

If a storm is elevated, that means it is not ingesting near-surface parcels; the updraft parcel original is above the surface. In these cases, as I said before, and most of us know, there is very little chance of getting tornado development. Studies have shown, as has DOW radar data, that tornado vortices have extended to to as close to a few hundred meters above the surface, yet never actually touched down. This could very well be due to a stable near-surface layer, the stability of which does not allow the vortex penetrate to the surface. Obviously, if it's expected that the storm will become surface-based in time, tornado warnings may be issued while the storm is still elevated to provide significant lead time for when the storm is expected to become sfc-based (and thus the tornado threat generally increase quickly). However, given the time of day and the environmental profile, I don't think many were anticipating surface-based convection at that time. It WAS a possibility, and the SPC DID mentioned it (and outline the 2% risk), so it's not like they completely busted.
 
Glen,

I was not attacking the NWS. I was defending the private sector.

And, yes, WeatherData® did a superb job on the EVV tornado. We had a railroad client in the area and made the correct warning decision (which, in this case, was NOT to warn as the tornado was more than 5 mi. from their track). The decision not to warn prevented an unnecessary shutdown.

In addition, we correctly warned a client of damaging winds (a confidentiality agreement prevents me from naming them) in an area where the NWS had no warning whatsoever.

But that is not the point. As I said in my original post, I don't understand how this unfortunate event turned into a bash the private sector and Santorum Bill situation.

And, it was not just this forum. Roger Brown's (SPC) comments in yesterday's newspaper were taken by multiple people as bashing telephone alerting services (private sector). Considering NOAA weather radio failed to alert many, it is especially unfortunate that he decided to say what he said. StormCallâ„¢ (the system we work with) uses the polygon warnings and cuts out just about all of the false alarms, something NOAA weather radio can't do.

If pro-NWS people don't want criticism of the NWS, then don't criticize the private sector unless the NWS has done a perfect job.

Mike
 
Back
Top