Should SPC risk categories be changed?

[Elaine Spencer]

I mentioned this topic on another thread and thought I'd move it here for a stand-alone discussion.

After the tornadoes in Texas last week there was some discussion among mets on Twitter about whether SPC should change its "slight" and "moderate" risk categories. Some believe that "slight" makes the risk sound negligible or insignificant and "moderate" sounds to the untrained ear like "average" or "in the middle" (i.e., neither extremely low nor extremely high, though in actuality a moderate risk of tornadoes is pretty significant).

Of course the next question is, what do you replace those terms with? Some suggest "elevated" in place of SLGT (to indicate that the risk is higher than normal) and "significant" or "serious" in place of MDT. High risk could stay the same or perhaps be changed to "extreme" or "critical" risk.

Although these products are intended as guidance for meteorologists and local forecast offices rather than for the general public, the fact is that the general public has access to them and some media mets pass them on without, perhaps, explaining their meaning adequately. But if that's the case, changing the names may not help all that much. In any event, I'd be interested in hearing everyone else's thoughts on this topic.

 

[STexan]

The Weather channel which is where much of the public get's their weather info translates these categories pretty well IMO to alert the average citizen with their "torcon" index and such. I'm not sure it would have a lot of impact in perception if the terms were changed. Also, the local news outlets have their own way of relaying the danger but most get their info while having breakfast. If things change mid afternoon from earlier forecasts (like happened in central TX the other day [Granbury]) then you can have some communication issues that can translate into potential unawareness states when they need to be aware.

 

[Robert Dewey]

I agree that the terminology might be misleading to those who aren't meteorologists, researchers, or enthusiasts... but I'm not sure that changing it would accomplish much since those are pretty much the only people who visit SPC's website. If anything, it might add a level of confusion as people in that group will have to relearn the new terminology, and how it corresponds with the old terminology (i.e. SLGT = enhanced, MDT = significant, HIGH = critical, etc).

Then there are other implications, such as programs that look for the current terms in the various products such as the KWNSPTSDY#.

 

[rdale]

TWC does NOT use slight mdt high. TORCON is not a version, that's just a marketing tool.

There are serious conversations looking at changing the terminology.

 

[Marcus Diaz]

I have a feeling TWC uses SIGTOR for their TORCON index. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

[rdale]

No. It's not at all related. TORCON * 10 = odds of a tornado based solely on the forecaster's experience. No peer reviewed science at play.

 

[Matt Tottle]

I agree that the terminology might be misleading to those who aren't meteorologists, researchers, or enthusiasts... but I'm not sure that changing it would accomplish much since those are pretty much the only people who visit SPC's website. If anything, it might add a level of confusion as people in that group will have to relearn the new terminology, and how it corresponds with the old terminology (i.e. SLGT = enhanced, MDT = significant, HIGH = critical, etc).

Then there are other implications, such as programs that look for the current terms in the various products such as the KWNSPTSDY#.

I agree. The majority of the public gets their weather from local sources, and I know the mets on the local channels here (Dave Freeman, Leon Smitherman, JD Rudd, Merrill Teller, Jay Prater, Ben Pringle) all do a good job of explaining the risk during their forecasts. They make it clear that it is an elevated risk of SEVERE weather, including hail, high winds, and tornadoes. They also do a great job on cut-ins showing where the storm is going, when it will get to places, and what the risks are and what actions need to be taken. True not everyone watches network TV, but you definitely can not accuse the mets of not spelling severe weather out to their audiences.