SPC Convective Outlook changes?

[Dan Robinson]

There is news floating around social media that the SPC is expanding its convective outlooks to five levels instead of three, and changing the criteria thresholds of some levels. This is supposed to be in effect now (for 2014).

The information looks legitimate, but I have not seen an official source post the news. The SPC web site doesn't mention this at all, nor do the current outlooks reflect the change.

Does anyone have any information?

EDIT: Here are some links:

https://twitter.com/Jeff_Piotrowski/status/422802763706142720/photo/1

https://twitter.com/MartinMMC/status/254990681716686848/photo/1/large

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/37066-spc-modifying-risk-categories-in-2013/

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index....nces-two-new-risk-categories-for-2014-season/

 

[Dan Robinson]

I've heard official confirmation that this change is still in 'proposed' status and has not officially rolled out yet. There will be an announcement when it does.

 

[Albert Rodriguez]

My Twitter feed was blowing up about this and it came across as the new standard. Thanks for the official statement.

 

[MClarkson]

I don't like it. My opinion would be don't change whats not broken. Its pretty clear that slight="worth keeping an eye on, but don't expect much", moderate="pretty solid threat" and high="people are certainly going to die". I don't think you want anything more complicated than that for the general outlook. Especially considering that at the click of a button you can look at the percentages, which are as exact as you can make the forecast.

Some products are meant to be simple.

 

[Greg Campbell]

(Caution! Cynic mode enabled.)

Does it really matter? Given Joe Sixpack's demonstrated willingness to carry on with something as dumb as a football game under active PDS conditions, I'm not sure the SPC's forecast is worth worrying about in the first place. I get the impression that people depend on the TeeVee for a short-term forecast, and ignore most everything else. So long as a Godzilla wedge isn't bearing down on their neighborhood, they couldn't care less what the NWS says, or how they say it.

Here's a question. What groups strongly rely on SPC issued threat levels?

Local NWS offices will be doing their own forecasting, and will be looking at far more than a simple blob plot from SPC.

Perhaps this will help at the city and county level, with the extra bull's-eye contours providing EMS planners, etc., with a somewhat more accurate level of threat assessment.

 

[Shane Adams]

I agree with both MClarkson and Greg; don't fix what ain't broken, but at the same time, is it really going to matter? I'm fairly certain the only people who truly rely on SPC outlooks (besides chasers) are EMS types, as Greg mentioned. As far as the general public (and more to the point, storm chasers) are concerned, it's not going to make any difference.

Although admittedly, I'm curious as to why this idea came to fruition in the first place. Seems the system that's long been in place works quite well.

 

[Stan Rose]

Geez, i drop in on stormtrack expecting to see pages of fun discussion about TWC doing battle with DTV, and all i get is rumors of SPC convective outlooks changing. Boring...

 

[Mark Ellinwood]

I agree with both MClarkson and Greg; don't fix what ain't broken, but at the same time, is it really going to matter? I'm fairly certain the only people who truly rely on SPC outlooks (besides chasers) are EMS types, as Greg mentioned. As far as the general public (and more to the point, storm chasers) are concerned, it's not going to make any difference.

Although admittedly, I'm curious as to why this idea came to fruition in the first place. Seems the system that's long been in place works quite well.

SPC outlooks have been spilling over onto TV (local and national) and onto major meteorologists' social media a lot recently, and it's usually just a rip-and-read of both the areas at risk and the categorical names. IMO it's part laziness in not translating it into a way the public/viewers understand, and part not having the time on air/space in tweets to explain it well enough. With the increased exposure both on TV and online in the public domain, it seems entities like the SPC (and NWS) have had to adjust their way of doing things to have more public-friendly products. The problem with this is, the transition to more public-friendly products has been difficult, and the result is an attempt to make a step in the right direction that some of us would think is actually a no gain/negative step.

I'm somewhat surprised that the new outlooks are basically the same as the original proposal. I saw many complaints about how the new wordage did not help at all, and some thought was actually worse (in terms of relating the severity of the threat to the category name). IMO, at this point they may as well just use a number system for the severity of the forecast, but unlike the more subjective nature of similar scales from places like TWC, it would provide the more objective measures that they already use.

 

[Shane Adams]

Geez, i drop in on stormtrack expecting to see pages of fun discussion about TWC doing battle with DTV, and all i get is rumors of SPC convective outlooks changing. Boring...

If you start that thread, replies will come.

 

[Joe Pudlik]

I'm fine with the "See Text" category finally getting some sort of name...Though marginal and slight are pretty much the same thing, so that's another issue.

I'm not fond of the addition of enhanced, especially since the previous system of slight/moderate/high was clear cut, easy to understand for those not weather savvy, and easier for TV mets to disseminate to the public.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I'm completely against it.

Everyone has been working hard to get the public to understand the three levels. Now, it just becomes more complicated. I have no doubt the public will pay even less attention.

Warren

 

[Jeff Hawkins]

I would like to hear more about the rationale behind the proposed changes. Who are they targeting? Who decided there was a "need" to change anything (someone who needs to justify their government job perhaps)? And how adding/changing the levels and terms make things better? I'm all for accuracy, just not sure this kind of a move would support that. IMHO if the benefits of changing aren't sure and clear and desirable above what is current, then don't change. K.I.S.S.

 

[John Farley]

Given that, as someone mentioned earlier, the media do often report the SPC outlooks to the public with maps and graphics, I would hope that before anything is implemented, some research is done to see if people understand these in the way intended. My guess is that the new terminology may generate more confusion than clarity. My guess is that, if they want to use five categories of risk, simply calling them something like risk level one through risk level five might be better understood than the proposed names for the risk levels. I am not sure the public will correctly understand the difference between "enhanced" and "moderate," for example.

 

[Elaine Spencer]

I don't have a problem with having 5 levels of risk vs. 3 and I don't think that in itself is confusing to the public.

If there is a problem with public understanding I suspect it would be in the names given to the risk levels.

Personally, I'd get rid of the term "moderate" altogether. The dictionary definition of moderate is "avoiding extremes of behavior or expression; observing reasonable limits; tending toward the mean or average." By that definition "moderate" risk would mean "not unusual for this area or time of year" and that is NOT what it means at all.

I'd agree with John Farley that just having Risk Levels 1 through 5 would probably work better. TWC's TOR:CON and Storm:Con indices use the same approach.

 

[Adam Lucio]

Its probably due to those "higher end" SLGT risk days...the 10-30-30 hatched days that can still have violent tornadoes that decimate towns. Then people say, but it was *only* a slight risk when it should have been MDT bla bla bla.