NWS Meteorologists Are Tracking A Tornado...

[Nathan Edwards]

I have to agree with much said here but can understand (but do not agree with) why they have done this. People are complacent by nature. If you give them a warning saying a possible tornado, people will convince themselves that it isn't going to happen to them. The only way get people to pay heed to warnings is to 'enhance' the wording every so often. However, this will inevitably create a Peter and the Wolf type situation and whilst it might make your average Joe pay attention in the short term, I'm sure the amount of people who will disregard warnings in the long term due to previous 'failures' of tornadoes to materialise will increase.

It might be harsh but I'm a solid believer of putting the info out there as it is and if people disregard it and pay with their lives, that is their fault.... If there is a possibilty of a rain wrapped tornado but there is no ground confirmation, say so. Let the public know it is 'highly likely' or 'there is a good possibility that a tornado is occurring' etc, but don't lie to them. If they choose to ignore the warnings, so be it. Perhaps some injuries and fatalities might occur because the public disregard 'radar indicated' type warnings, but you should not blame the NWS for the public not taking shelter in these situations. Current warning text for radar indicated tornadoes is fine. It asks people to take shelter in an appropriate fashion and it is their choice to risk not seeking it. I think phrasing the warnings in a way which almost appears to be lying would cause more problems in the long run..

 

[rdale]

I think the thing to remember is that VERY few Joe Citizens read the text of the warning. Really the only part used is the first paragraph, and that's by the media. So if the NWS says "we are tracking a tornado" then the media is going to say "NWS meteorologists are following the tornado" only to come back the next day and say "Oops, there never was a tornado even though the NWS said they were watching it."

I don't know if the change was intentional or not. The NWS directives says that part (c) of the warning should state "the basis for the warning."

 

[Rob H]

As the 3/10/10 NOW thread probably shows, I was a little confused by the warning text at first - and 10 minutes later they updated the warning and removed the text in question. I'm of the opinion that it is more important to prevent any sort of "boy who cried wolf" scenarios than it is to scare people into safety. Personally, I will be explicitly looking for the word "confirmed" from now on.

Please let us know if there is anything to share after your discussion(s).

 

[Darren Addy]

I have a saying: "Words mean things." The problem is that the same word may mean different things to different people. Look, technically the NWS may not be tracking a tornado (as in, "in contact with the ground") but would you rather they say:

"The NWS is tracking a couplet associated with a severe thunderstorm which may or may not be a tornado on the ground at this moment, but if it's not it could be at any moment."

???

It is sort of like if you had a warning for nails being driven into boards. If you were the Nail Warning Service and the hammer was swinging how long would you wait before issuing a "you may get nailed" warning? I mean there are a lot of possibilities there: The hammer may miss or be stopped in mid-swing, or Clint Eastwood may shoot the hammer out of the guy's hands, but I think if my baby nails were anywhere in the vicinity of the swinging hammer, I'd like them to hear about it and take appropriate evasive action as soon as possible. Quibbling over words in this case seems a bit silly.

(Wow. Where did THAT analogy come from?)

 

[Jim Saueressig]

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

"NWS Meteorologists Are Tracking A Tornado"[/B

I think "NWS Meteorologists Are Tracking A Storm With a Possible Tornado" or back to "NWS Meteorologists are Tracking a Storm Capable of Producing a Tornado" even though this is a given if its severe.

I think all of these definitive type statements are just making people not listen to anything anymore.

 

[rdale]

"The NWS is tracking a couplet associated with a severe thunderstorm which may or may not be a tornado on the ground at this moment, but if it's not it could be at any moment."

No, I don't think that would work.

How about the words that most offices use?

"NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A TORNADO"

Quibbling over words in this case seems a bit silly.

Have you read any of the WAS*IS reports? I find it hard to believe that the meaning of words is irrelevant. As a matter of fact - it should be clear in this thread without having to do any research, since many thought the phrasing meant a confirmed tornado was on the ground.

Here's a thought - you're out spotting/chasing, and you see a rotating storm that is inside of a Tornado Warning. Do you call the NWS and say "I am tracking a tornado"? Do you come here and put in the REPORT thread that "Spotters tracked a tornado"? No. That's a much better analogy.

 

[beaudodson]

No, I don't think that would work.

How about the words that most offices use?

"NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A TORNADO"

Have you read any of the WAS*IS reports? I find it hard to believe that the meaning of words is irrelevant. As a matter of fact - it should be clear in this thread without having to do any research, since many thought the phrasing meant a confirmed tornado was on the ground.

Here's a thought - you're out spotting/chasing, and you see a rotating storm that is inside of a Tornado Warning. Do you call the NWS and say "I am tracking a tornado"? Do you come here and put in the REPORT thread that "Spotters tracked a tornado"? No. That's a much better analogy.

The meaning of words is extremely important to emergency management, emergency officials in general, local media, and the general public.

I agree with RobDale on the subject - it is poor wording. When I first saw this working pop up in products I was confused, as well. I had to read the warning text more than once to make sure what it meant. In the end I figured it out myself - it meant that radar indicated a severe thunderstorm with a possible tornado. A tornado had not been confirmed.

The people I have asked about this say the same thing. They read it as if the NWS is tracking an actual tornado (on the ground at the time the warning text was issued).

The difference between saying a severe thunderstorm with a possible tornado and a warning that says a tornado was confirmed could mean the difference between sirens being blown and sirens not being blown (in some cities).

There is an entire field of social science and psychology that needs to go into how products are worded for public consumption. The Super Tuesday Tornado Assessment should have taught us that.

Words are important. Especially when it comes to getting people to take action or react to those words.

 

[Jeff Miller]

The difference between saying a severe thunderstorm with a possible tornado and a warning that says a tornado was confirmed could mean the difference between sirens being blown and sirens not being blown (in some cities).

Not to venture too far off subject, but in both cases, the sirens need to be activated. A Tornado Warning is a Tornado Warning - and if a warning is issued for a Tornado Warning with a "CAPABLE" tornado there is no reason to hold back on public warning via tornado sirens. Towns that avoid blowing sirens in a radar-indicated tor warning are irresponsible at best.

On subject, the wording "tracking a tornado" means just that - a TORNADO - a violent column of air extending from a thunderstorm IN CONTACT WITH THE GROUND - is, by definition, in contact with the ground. The phrasing itself is a form of confirmation. If it is radar indicated, without ground truth confirmation, it is unconfirmed and should be broadcast as unconfirmed, and as a thunderstorm which is capable of producing a tornado.

The verbiage needs to be changed ASAP.

 

[Chris Heater]

A similar thing happened last year in my town (Urbana) in March I believe. Can't remember the exact date, but the warning read as "meteorologists were tracking a tornado". Now normally in my town barely anyone heeds the warnings. But when this warning was issued and as I drove into town, there was absolutely NO ONE on the road. Even the MTD buses were pulled off the streets (very rare even for a tornado warned storm). The U of I on that same storm sent a mass e-mail to all students and said a tornado was on the ground heading for downtown Champaign/Urbana, causing a minor form of panic. I know this cause my dad works for MTD and his co-workers told him what happened the next day.

I'm sure you can see why the wording needs to be changed. They shouldn't say it unless they are actually tracking a tornado confirmed, on the ground. It will avoid more "false alarms" and any panic that could ensue from wrong wording

 

[Jeff Miller]

I've been trying to wrap my head around why these offices would switch wording to this form.

The only thing that I can figure is that by enhancing the wording that the warning will be taken more seriously. That there will be a greater response to the "Tracking a Tornado" verbiage then the verbiage of "Capable of Producing a Tornado".

As Chris has pointed out, yes, there is indeed a greater response. However, after all is said and done, and the meso has moved on to the NE, and there is no damage, the repercussions will outweigh the greater response.

It is best to stay accurate to truth in tornado warning situations. Here's my final thoughts:

1. If it's radar indicated, issue a Tornado Warning as normal - but don't lead the public to think it is confirmed. Call it what it is - radar indicated or doppler indicated - and that the storm is capable of producing a tornado at any time.
2. If a tornado is confirmed on the ground, and the area is not a heavily urbanized area, issue a tornado warning as normal. If the tornado is reported as large, and violent rotation is observed, continue using the verbiage "A large and extremely dangerous tornado". If the parent thunderstorm is cyclic and has produced multiple tornadoes, use the verbiage "This storm has a history of producing tornadoes".
2. If it's confirmed that there is a tornado, but it is not a large tornado in an urban area with a high risk of fatalities and serious injuries, don't call it a "Tornado Emergency."
3. If a large and violent tornado is approaching a large urban area, is steady-state, and has a high likelihood of widespread, devastating destruction with a high risk of fatalities and serious injuries, enhance the Tornado Warning with "Tornado Emergency" verbiage.

When the National Weather Service begins going down the route of leading people to believe a tornado is on the ground when a tornado is not on the ground, credibility is lost and the public perception falls fast and hard. With Chris's story as solid evidence, there was "minor panic". There is no need for outright panic when the meso is still safely thousands of feet above the ground - as is the case for a large portion of supercellular thunderstorms that never produce tornadoes - but there is a need for everyone public to get in their safe zones, follow tornado procedures, and most importantly - accuracy - from the officials responsible for disseminating information in truth to the public. We as chasers and spotters have the responsibility to confirm if there is or is not a tornado - and if there is - or is not - let's never fail to get the word of truth out and get that confirmation to the powers that be immediately.