Some offices not following the NWS directives for TOR's!

[Richard Halter]

you know, it would really be helpful if the graphics of many weather web sights would include county names that you could zoom in on. I don't live anywhere but where I live, and that leaves several thousand other counties that I don't know the name of, so when the warnings are issued, they could be for Timbuktu (I know where that is), for all I know where the physical localtion is.

For that matter, if the NWS print warnings could go out with a small graphic that had the county in question with surrounding counties labled. In this day and age, it can't be that hard to incorporate a small pic.


:dontknow:

 

[mikegeukes]

You be surprise how many people do not even know the county seat of the counties they live in or the cities and townships in their own county, let alone knowing the surrounding counties. Some people I have met, have trouble knowing what direction they are going. I met people that cannot even read a road map. A lot of folks are not well versed in map reading and geography in the United States.

Mike
http://mgweather.com

 

[Mike Hardiman]

For that matter, if the NWS print warnings could go out with a small graphic that had the county in question with surrounding counties labled. In this day and age, it can't be that hard to incorporate a small pic.

Good thought which highlights the public awareness problem... probably even worse in the Northeast where there is no county government. What good is a warning when the people who actually receive them (another issue) ask themselves, "where the heck is that!?"

Main problem here is with the systems that receive the warnings. I don't know the details, but we are limited to 69 characters per line, all caps, and no commas, quotations, or apostrophes, etc.

Given those limitations, you can pretty much discount graphics embedded in warnings. Some web sites will, like you mention, show the counties, including NWS office homepages. Some of the graphics, like you imply, could be better.

Besides, if the NWS put graphics right in the warnings, the private sector would probably find some reason to get their knickers in a knot over it.

*See previously used disclaimer!*

 

[rdale]

"The way the directive-ese jargon works, it means that 15-45 minutes is a recommended guideline, not a hard rule. A hard rule would have used the term "SHALL." "

I've been notified of that difference since then... I can understand on occasion the need would exist for a longer warning, but in talking to Jeff @ GRB he sent some average TOR times from neighboring offices and he was the smallest of the lot -- but several averaged 40-44 minutes. If the average is on the high end of the "should" limit then the "should" is apparently being interpreted too loosely.

- Rob

 

[Mike Hardiman]

but several averaged 40-44 minutes. If the average is on the high end of the "should" limit then the "should" is apparently being interpreted too loosely.

I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the forecasters making the call while in the hot seat. I'm sure they have good reasons for erring on the "long" side of things...

 

[rdale]

I've yet to hear a good reason for issuing a 67 minute warning on a cell moving at 40mph across a 20-mile wide county yet ;> My big problem is hour+ warnings issued for dopnadoes -- if there's something on the ground I might understand the longer duration but if spotters say no I don't feel that warnings should be over an hour. Do a half-hour and reevaluate, don't just blanket (especially with more and more stations doing wall-to-wall coverage for TOR's.)

- Rob

 

[Jeff Snyder]

I've yet to hear a good reason for issuing a 67 minute warning on a cell moving at 40mph across a 20-mile wide county yet ;> My big problem is hour+ warnings issued for dopnadoes -- if there's something on the ground I might understand the longer duration but if spotters say no I don't feel that warnings should be over an hour. Do a half-hour and reevaluate, don't just blanket (especially with more and more stations doing wall-to-wall coverage for TOR's.)

- Rob

I agree personally.... However, in the name of verification statistics, a 2 30-minutes tornado warnings that don't verify is worse than one 60-minute tornado warning that doesn't verify. I have a hunch that this is largely driven in the name of verification stats... PoD seems to be more valued than the FAR, and I assume much of that is because of political pressure. You know as much as anyone, that it's much better from a political viewpoint to warn many and hit all (high FAR, PoD=1) than to warn few and miss one (low FAR, lower PoD). The county EM will get many calls from local reisdents and media complaining that they had no warnings, they'll call their local legistlators, and next thing ya know you have a bad performance evaluation becuase you missed a tornado... Yes, I think it's all crap, but I don't think that'll change anytime too soon unless people really realize that meteorology, while more advanced than ever, is still fuzzy in many areas...

 

[rdale]

"However, in the name of verification statistics, a 2 30-minutes tornado warnings that don't verify is worse than one 60-minute tornado warning that doesn't verify. "

Good point - I never pictured that as the issue but I think you are on to something... Maybe if the local NWS office wasn't in a bubble then things could change - should I transfer the irate callers direct to them as a start ;> ?

- Rob

 

[Greg Stumpf]

I agree personally.... However, in the name of verification statistics, a 2 30-minutes tornado warnings that don't verify is worse than one 60-minute tornado warning that doesn't verify. I have a hunch that this is largely driven in the name of verification stats... PoD seems to be more valued than the FAR, and I assume much of that is because of political pressure.

With that logic, one could take the extreme. One office could issue a continuous tornado warning for their entire CWA for the entire year. As long as there is one tornado in their CWA that year, they have a POD of 1 and an FAR of 0.

Yes, the NWS GPRA goals do emphasize higher POD more than lower FAR, but a low FAR is still very important. If not, then offices would tend toward the above.

The whole procedure for warnings and warning verification needs an overhaul. It needs to be area and temporally based, perhaps on a grid like the SPC now uses for watch verification, rather than based on individual warnings and counties warned. There are some NSSL researchers that have proposed the idea.


greg

 

[rdale]

"Yes, the NWS GPRA goals do emphasize higher POD more than lower FAR, but a low FAR is still very important. If not, then offices would tend toward the above. "

Are verification numbers available anywhere?

- Rob

 

[Mike Hardiman]

Maybe if the local NWS office wasn't in a bubble then things could change - should I transfer the irate callers direct to them as a start

HA! In a bubble!?!? OK...

Once again, have you actually contacted the forecaster or office who issued this 67 minute warning to ask them what was going through their heads?

 

[rdale]

"HA! In a bubble!?!? OK... "

Compared to a TV station - yep! Ask anyone on the street where the NWS office responsible for warnings is and I guarantte NOBODY will know it's 60 miles away.

"Once again, have you actually contacted the forecaster or office who issued this 67 minute warning to ask them what was going through their heads?"

I have talked with GRR and they are trying to get keep their times down as well as issuing partial-county warnings if possible. I talked to DTX about a tornado warning that was issued for a non-existing thunderstorm (the tornado had occurred 30+ minutes prior, radar was EMPTY, and the report was third-hand) and it was explained to me by the WCM that meteorologists can interpret radar in different ways as the science isn't perfect. No sense in continuing THAT conversation. Here's what they posted to a wx list:

"Several cases have suggested we re-issued too many warnings for the same county if the storm is slower or redeveloping."

- Rob

 

[Jay McCoy]

Each NWS office Keeps their verification records and should make them available online. I did just a quick yahoo search and clicked on the first one I saw. it was from Tulsa but i am sure most NWS offices post them if not at least the regional offices.

here is the link to Tulsa

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tulsa/sver.html