NWS Joplin Service Assessment is Out

[Jesse Risley]

Even with that said - according to some studies most people don't shelter until the last 2 minutes prior to a storm hitting. If this is indeed the case then would it have mattered? Could people have driven out of the path (as we have seen in some strong - long tracked tornado events)? With it touching the ground and becoming a strong/violent tornado so quickly I doubt many could have fled or would have had time to flee.

This seems to be the crux of the issue here. FAR aside, in my own qualitative synthesis of andecdotal evidence, speaking directly to ordinary, non-weather aficionados on a fairly regular basis, most people still seem to have a hard time understanding that meteorologist still can't look at a SVR thunderstorm that is developing strong rotation and tell a person, definitively, whether or not their home, place of business, school, etc. is going to take a direct hit by a tornado in the next ____ minutes. That doesn't mean the science of meteorology is vacuous; the technology simply doesn't exist to take warnings to this level for every single thunderstorm.

Even though false alarms and/or over warnings do happen, any given location within a relatively more tornado prone area is likely to experience a number of tornado warnings over a given period of time where a bona fide tornado does not touch down anywhere near that aforesaid location, if at all. It would be great if there were some way to get people to conceptualize the notion that all that can be done sometimes is to give folks prior warning that a given storm may be capable of producing a tornado and that all threats need to be taken seriously. The lack of a tornado manifesting itself on your front lawn didn't make the threat any less serious - sometimes you really do just get lucky.

Granted, this is more of the social science aspect, but if you're going to look at how and why warnings are often disregarded or even derided by some, then this is a very real antecedent conception.

 

[Shane Adams]

Even with that said - according to some studies most people don't shelter until the last 2 minutes prior to a storm hitting. If this is indeed the case then would it have mattered? Could people have driven out of the path (as we have seen in some strong - long tracked tornado events)? With it touching the ground and becoming a strong/violent tornado so quickly I doubt many could have fled or would have had time to flee.

There are some events that will always haunt meteorologists - this is one of them. Not to mention disheartening.

We discussed this on the last show. Personally I think the difference was the fact the tornado formed on the edge of town and became violent quickly. In many cases we've seen violent, long-track tornadoes move over open country and be tracked live via choppers or city cams, giving people in the path several minutes' of "proof" along with the actual tornado warning. Considering most people wait until the last possible minute to react, it would make sense that folks in Joplin weren't even aware there was a tornado until it was upon them. A simple, logistical nightmare. However, I've heard the same stock complaint that there was no warning until the last minute, which is of course incorrect. I think the more accurate statement regarding this event is "people in Joplin didn't receive the warning until the last minute, if at all."

We had some very informative calls regarding this topic in the second hour of the show, which can be viewed here for anyone interested:

WARNING: R-rated

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17406687

 

[Jeff Duda]

I think the more accurate statement regarding this event is "people in Joplin didn't receive the warning until the last minute, if at all."

I don't think that's true. The service assessment made it seem like people did receive the warning but just flat out disregarded it. Other than that I agree with the idea that this was such a bad event because of a combination of mishappenings: rapid development and intensification of the storm and tornado right as it was entering town, the poor visibility, and the conditioned complacency of residents about seeking shelter when warnings are issued.

 

[Bryce Stone]

Remember a NWS service assessment is intended to assess how the NWS acted during an event, and how the warning dissemination process worked. You're asking for great info - but well outside the role of a team of meteorologists. I would hope/expect that funding was also spent on other non-NWS teams for that purpose, but it wouldn't be in a SA.

Yes, you're right. Obviously I wasn't thinking clearly when I posted that.

 

[Bryce Stone]

I don't think that's true. The service assessment made it seem like people did receive the warning but just flat out disregarded it. Other than that I agree with the idea that this was such a bad event because of a combination of mishappenings: rapid development and intensification of the storm and tornado right as it was entering town, the poor visibility, and the conditioned complacency of residents about seeking shelter when warnings are issued.

I think Shane was making the point that warnings were given and disregarded. His sentence immediately prior to the one you quoted:

However, I've heard the same stock complaint that there was no warning until the last minute, which is of course incorrect.

 

[beaudodson]

There is also a lengthy thread ongoing over on AmericanWx about this topic

Last page here
http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index....-missouri-tornado-assessment-recommendations/

Some interesting comments there - including some from individuals that were in the tornado event.

 

[beaudodson]

This seems to be the crux of the issue here. FAR aside, in my own qualitative synthesis of andecdotal evidence, speaking directly to ordinary, non-weather aficionados on a fairly regular basis, most people still seem to have a hard time understanding that meteorologist still can't look at a SVR thunderstorm that is developing strong rotation and tell a person, definitively, whether or not their home, place of business, school, etc. is going to take a direct hit by a tornado in the next ____ minutes. That doesn't mean the science of meteorology is vacuous; the technology simply doesn't exist to take warnings to this level for every single thunderstorm.

Even though false alarms and/or over warnings do happen, any given location within a relatively more tornado prone area is likely to experience a number of tornado warnings over a given period of time where a bona fide tornado does not touch down anywhere near that aforesaid location, if at all. It would be great if there were some way to get people to conceptualize the notion that all that can be done sometimes is to give folks prior warning that a given storm may be capable of producing a tornado and that all threats need to be taken seriously. The lack of a tornado manifesting itself on your front lawn didn't make the threat any less serious - sometimes you really do just get lucky.

Granted, this is more of the social science aspect, but if you're going to look at how and why warnings are often disregarded or even derided by some, then this is a very real antecedent conception.

If we could just educate the public and not be afraid of saying "we don't know" "I don't know" "we have know way of knowing at this point" - there is nothing wrong with saying those words.

I don't know how most people perceive the warning process. We can assume from some of the latest studies that people feel as if they are over-warned. At the same time there are studies indicating that if you ask people do you want to be warned if there is even a small risk of a tornado - they say YES. So - which is it? Are you over-warned or do you want to be warned if there is even a small risk for a tornado occurring?

I hear well educated people say that a warning was a bust because they don't have damage on their property. See - it was just another false alarm. Meanwhile a few miles down the road people are picking up the pieces.

I try to explain to people, on a regular basis, that the risk of their home being hit by a tornado is extremely low. The risk of damage to their home is fairly low from any given severe thunderstorm warned event. However, we can't say definitively that NO your home will or will not be hit by this outbreak/event - hours in advance. And I know all of us have been asked (multiple times) by people we know or communicate with - will I be hit today?

 

[Shane Adams]

I think Shane was making the point that warnings were given and disregarded. His sentence immediately prior to the one you quoted:

Indeed, that's exactly what I was saying.

 

[Karen St John]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Beau.

If we could just educate the public and not be afraid of saying "we don't know" "I don't know" "we have know way of knowing at this point" - there is nothing wrong with saying those words.

We don't know if the great white shark is still full from that last seal he had for dinner, either.

I don't know how most people perceive the warning process. We can assume from some of the latest studies that people feel as if they are over-warned. At the same time there are studies indicating that if you ask people do you want to be warned if there is even a small risk of a tornado - they say YES. So - which is it? Are you over-warned or do you want to be warned if there is even a small risk for a tornado occurring?

I think people may be thinking, "yes, there is a tornado warning, but I don't see anything, so I must be safe." People don't seem to know how fast a tornado could form near them on a tor-warned storm.

I hear well educated people say that a warning was a bust because they don't have damage on their property. See - it was just another false alarm. Meanwhile a few miles down the road people are picking up the pieces.

Exactly. And the neighbor down the road probably used to think the same thing...

I try to explain to people, on a regular basis, that the risk of their home being hit by a tornado is extremely low. The risk of damage to their home is fairly low from any given severe thunderstorm warned event. However, we can't say definitively that NO your home will or will not be hit by this outbreak/event - hours in advance. And I know all of us have been asked (multiple times) by people we know or communicate with - will I be hit today?

The probability that Joplin would be hit was low, in the same way, but the storm spawned an EF5. A rapid confluence of circumstances that most people don't observe closely was the game changer...

In the abridged words of Dirty Harry..."Do you feel lucky?"

 

[Karen St John]

Both of my parents grew up in tornado country (Mom in Iowa, Dad in WI and MN). It was inconceivable to them, both also having grown up before the time of tornado warnings, that one would not pay attention to the weather, especially when skies turned a greener shade of dark...

Likewise, it would have been a deal breaker not to have a basement on any house they would own. In the house we built in Michigan (hardly tornado country) the builder wanted to put in a crawl space for the price. Nope. Wasn't gonna happen. If there was a tornado, that would not do. We didn't locate on a flood plain, because flooding is dangerous. I was taught to come inside during thunderstorms...(well, that didn't take!)

It's too bad people do not think ahead about their survival like that anymore.