NWS Meteorologists Are Tracking A Tornado...

[rdale]

A trend I started seeing last year seems to be expanding this year... Some NWS offices are putting:

"NWS Meteorologists Are Tracking A Tornado"

in the text of Tornado Warnings. Now for most people I've talked to (especially a public sample) that means that there is a tornado doing damage, and some sort of meteorologist / spotter group is watching it.

What it actually means is that the NWS meteorologist feels strongly that there could be a tornado. None has been confirmed, sighted, or even publicly-reported.

I ran a quick survey on ML and the overwhelming response was that this phrasing is a BAD idea. Many felt that it was just the NWS trying to grab attention or dramatize a threat for whatever reason, and using false information to do so.

That ruins the public warning system for all of us -- when the public hears "NWS sees a tornado" from one source and "There is no tornado, we're watching closely" from all the others. All the time - there is no tornado.

Thoughts?

 

[Jeff Duda]

I agree with you 100%, Rob. As I mentioned in a post in the 3/10/10 NOW thread (http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showpost.php?p=262131&postcount=6), it has gotten to the point where unless I see "spotters/chasers/law enforcement has confirmed a tornado on the ground" type wording in Tornado Warnings, I pretty much take what they say with a grain of salt and assume no tornado has been spotted. The wording they've been using lately is very misleading and I would also say it is a bad idea. I don't know why they started doing this. The NWS of all organizations that monitors the weather should know what kind of meaning text like that carries.

 

[Greg Blumberg]

I agree. For a long time I've had issues with the way NWS warnings are presented, especially when it comes to placement of the announcement about the tornado.

 

[Scott Olson]

I don't have a big problem with the phraseology, other than that it does seem to imply that there is a confirmed tornado on the ground. Since the NWS seems to want to move towards the possibility of probalistic forecasts (as certainity expressed is a better science) and that warnings already include specifiying either a radar indicated or confirmed tornado. With the phrase at the top, it does make things less clear as to what level of certainity that particular warning is at.

 

[joel ewing]

Really strong wording like that from the NWS has definitely gotten my attention over the past couple of years. I've tried to figure it out myself, to no avail. I'm glad we're discussing it in here now. I never assumed that there was an actual tornado on the ground...but concluded that whomever was monitoring the radar at the NWS had seen something so ominous in the returns that they opted to issue such a sternly-worded warning.
Perhaps an easy "fix" to this would be to add the word "probable" to the sentence....."The national weather service in Omaha was tracking a PROBABLE tornado six miles east of Ewing, Nebraska...etc. etc.

 

[rdale]

I hear you - but "probable" is still a pretty strong word in the tornado world. For most of the time they were "tracking the tornado" last night, there was no tornado.

 

[joel ewing]

Oh why, oh why....has nobody "thanked" me for anything. It's so embarassing to have all "zeros" near my name...when everybody else has tallied several.
Life.....is.......ummm....I forget.

Yeah, probable may be a pretty strong word in the tornado world, but I would think that under certain circumstances it would be warranted.
Just off the top of my head, let's say to the Greensburg tornado, which happened in the dark, was not verified by anybody on the ground. For the most part....that's what happened. And if you were watching the radar at Dodge City and saw the obvious....how would you word the warning? (again, with no ground truth)

 

[cstrunk]

I definitely think it is over-used. I have no problem if they are EXTREMELY sure that there is an actual tube on the ground, even if there is no ground verification. Especially in HP type events near large areas of population where there is serious risk of loss of life/property. But they use it too much in other cases where it's not quite as sure. They should be more clear in their wording, and only say they are tracking a tornado if they are very sure there is a tornado or it has been verified.

 

[rdale]

And if you were watching the radar at Dodge City and saw the obvious....how would you word the warning? (again, with no ground truth)

"Probably" is fine there. But I don't think it would have been acceptable to say "NWS meteorologists are tracking the tornado" if they weren't. The storms last night didn't look at all like Greensburg. The radar beam was at 10,000ft first off...

I'm not saying "probably" is a bad word. I'm saying that if you're only going on radar, saying "we have the tornado on radar" is misleading and harms the warning process.

 

[Jeff Duda]

Perhaps an easy "fix" to this would be to add the word "probable" to the sentence....."The national weather service in Omaha was tracking a PROBABLE tornado six miles east of Ewing, Nebraska...etc. etc.

What exactly is a "probable" tornado? What is a "possible" tornado? I hear that language all the time, not just from NWS warnings, but from media and TWC personnel, too. A tornado is either there or not. There's no such thing as a tornado that only has "probable" or "possible" status, and that is also wording that I wish would be changed. Then you would take your wording of the tornado warning and edit it to say something like "Doppler radar revealed a high probability that a tornado will form near (location). The area of greatest threat is located near (location) and is moving..."

 

[Robert Dewey]

"This storm has the potential to produce a tornado at any moment..." seems like it would be fine (and I believe some variation of that is used, or has been used here in the Great Lakes TORs).

The wording originally posted by Rob seems very misleading to me, as it implies that there is a confirmed tornado (after all, you can't track a tornado if there isn't a tornado to be tracked). I've seen warnings with that wording, and falsely assumed it meant that a tornado has been confirmed.

I agree with Scott Olson... the wording would be fine, if there was a confirmed tornado.

 

[John MacKay]

I got sucked in this trap when they first started to use it. Now, I just assume they picked up a nice couplet on radar which could be a "possible" tornado. Unless I hear an off-duty NWS meteorologist is tracking it, I don't think much of it.

The "possible" wording is usually good enough, and I do agree with "probable" only used in situations where a definite damaging tornado has been confirmed, and even then, it still might dissipate before that word gets out.

 

[rdale]

Thanks to all for adding their input - I wanted to make sure it wasn't just me before I approach the NWS

I've unscientifically surveyed public, media meteorologists and this forum and it's pretty clear what the thoughts are as a whole. I'll contact NWS HQ next week.

PS Congrats Jeff on getting published in W&F, it's a great article.

 

[Paul Knightley]

IMO, the only time such a term should be used is when it's coupled with spotter reports - e.g.: Meteorologists and storm spotters are tracking a tornado - this tornado is xx miles SW of xxx, etc etc.

 

[Jack LeBlanc]

A trend I started seeing last year seems to be expanding this year... Some NWS offices are putting:

"NWS Meteorologists Are Tracking A Tornado"

in the text of Tornado Warnings. Now for most people I've talked to (especially a public sample) that means that there is a tornado doing damage, and some sort of meteorologist / spotter group is watching it.

What it actually means is that the NWS meteorologist feels strongly that there could be a tornado. None has been confirmed, sighted, or even publicly-reported.

I ran a quick survey on ML and the overwhelming response was that this phrasing is a BAD idea. Many felt that it was just the NWS trying to grab attention or dramatize a threat for whatever reason, and using false information to do so.

That ruins the public warning system for all of us -- when the public hears "NWS sees a tornado" from one source and "There is no tornado, we're watching closely" from all the others. All the time - there is no tornado.

Thoughts?

This is very dangerous. It is chicken little running around saying the sky is falling ! Confirmation must be made by site ! I watched the Weather Channel the other day as tornaoe's swept thru Arkansas, and they were reporting "touchdowns" from a "unidentified source" ? What the hell doe's that mean, Bobby is in his room watching it from his TV and is calling in a tornado ? Time to get agrip, and get the information from reliable sources.