"Too Much" Lead Time?

[Keith Wilson]

I would much rather be looking for solutions to problems created (or imagined) by too much warning than continuing to make excuses or provide explanations for not providing enough warning. There will always be people who do not hear the warnings and those that will ignore them.

There are solutions to extended warning lead times. Foremost would be to continue to refine the size and accuracy of the warned area so that fewer people are subjected to "false" tornado warnings, with a tornado alert or advisory in advance of the actual warning. As Skip mentioned, perhaps sound a different alert tone with the sirens, such as a series of short bursts to continue until the threat is imminent and the sirens sound continuously.

Of course, any changes would require re-educating the public, but if done right could increase the confidence that the public has in the warning system. There is never going to be a perfect system, but could you have imagined 30 minutes of warning when you were growing up? Would you have complained?

 

[Robert Dewey]

Back in elementary school, the principal would come across the PA and announce SVR / TOR watches, explain the meaning and declare "indoor recess." I think that's a proper level of caution, or at least better than trying to hunt down X number of students in the 6-11 year old range and get them into the "tornado drill" positions.

 

[rdale]

WAYYYY too much reliance on sirens in many of these posts... EMs and 911 Directoris aren't going to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade their sirens, AND sit by the switch to change tones depending on whether or not a cop sees a tornado. It's just not going to happen, so try ideas that get away from sirens before going too in-depth.

 

[Adam Lucio]

Yea, if severe weather is happening and you can't find your kids after 10 minutes then I think your parenting skills need some refining. If your kids aren't old enough to be educated on what to do themselves then chances are they aren't old enough to be 10 minutes out of sight.

The different alert tones are a cool idea, but would take a very long time to implement. I think in order for that to be successful though a standard tone would need to be used, right now each town has a different siren which has a different tone which would probably confuse people who travel.

 

[Skip Talbot]

Putting aside all the, "well they should have done this, or maybe if they had done that", there are situations where it could take longer than 20 minutes to get to shelter. Who wants to tell the guy in that situation that we could have given him 20 minutes, but instead we only gave him 15 because we thought 20 was too much.

 

[Keith Wilson]

WAYYYY too much reliance on sirens in many of these posts... EMs and 911 Directoris aren't going to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade their sirens, AND sit by the switch to change tones depending on whether or not a cop sees a tornado. It's just not going to happen, so try ideas that get away from sirens before going too in-depth.

I couldn't tell you where the nearest siren is down here, but then we don't get hammered with tornadoes on an annual basis either. Though I agree with your op about money and manpower, in many places it is an important part of the warning system and any talk of improving warnings should include the sirens.

 

[Danny Neal]

I just fail to see any situation out there where 20 minutes isn't enough time (outside of the examples above; large venues, retirement homes, hotels, hospitals) People who are out camping likely won't hear the sirens anyway and there wouldn't be much shelter anyway, same with people on private lakes or any lake for that matter. I never said 20 minutes was too much time.... maybe not even 25, but when you get above that threshold those 10 people you are warning for may get to shelter in that period of time, but those 500+ already in their shelter would have been in there for 30 minutes. The NWS can't possibly warn for everybody, risk vs reward.

 

[Skip Talbot]

Well, if you can't imagine a scenario needing all the time it can possibly get, here's one:

A tornado event not unlike the Campo tornado unfolds: 2% day, severe thunderstorm watch, generally blue skies around the tornadic supercell before and during the tornado. Let's say its moving through a sparsely populated Colorado county, where most of the human population is outdoors tourists who are hiking or rafting. They've got their NOAA weather radio and, amazingly, get reception. They weren't completely oblivious either, they saw a slight chance for isolated afternoon thunderstorms and decided the probs for storms were too low to cancel their afternoon plans given the low chance of initiation and storm coverage. They are well into their hike/rafting by the time the blue box goes up, and their tornadic supercell quickly follows. Advanced realtime microscale models know a tornado is going to strike a spot in this county an hour in advance. Why not give these hikers and rafter all the time we can so that they can get to base camp, which has underground shelters. Also keep in mind that there are more tourists roaming this county than the few ranchers that actually live there, so excessive warning time seems unlikely.

"Bah, that will never happen, its such a far fetched scenario..." but I say, however unlikely, that it is possible, and that we shouldn't have a fixed upper limit on warning times, because these situations are indeed possible. Perhaps an upper limit does need to be considered when dealing with urban areas or other circumstance, but I believe that its better we give people more time, as much time as possible, rather than less.

 

[Danny Neal]

A situation like Campo is an interesting one..... although it wasn't necessarily in a mountainous region (which leads me to believe a lot of people wouldn't be roaming the open prairies lol) it is one that COULD happen. I would think that a tornado warning wouldn't immediately be issued. Only in rare occurrences will a tornado warning be issued upon initiation.... namely the Bowdle storm. I would think if they got reception on a NWR they would have heard a severe thunderstorm warning being issued or even the watch being issued. Also most outdoorsy people know how to look for towering Cu and threatening skies so many of them may have already started retreating. I think to the outdoors scenario the NWS is pretty much useless because 90% of them wouldn't be in possession of any type of NWR.... hell cell phone receptions may be slim to nil! I think it would play into those campers/hikers/etc situational awareness. In your scenario you said they knew of the risk of severe weather but chose to go anyway. Most campers/hikers would have been on foot anyway... is it conceivable that these outdoorsman would find shelter in 20-30 minutes and would that shelter survive a tornado? What I am saying is the NWS probably doesn't make these situations a priority... remember it is all about FAR now so odds are you will have 45-60 minute warning. I can't recall reading any evidence for or against increasing warning times. Science can't predict 150,000 peoples opinions of what to much time is sitting in a cellar is.

 

[Keith Hosman]

From someone on the other side of the coin, as someone who works in emergency management, part of my job is puble safety/notification. Anythine there is severe weather we need to make sure the public in our jurisdiction has ample warning to find shelter or a place of safety.

That being said, in our area (NW Ohio) we do not get as many tornadic events as the plains states do, however when we do, they often pop up quick, or are part of a very fast moving system. In our case ample lead time is highly important because of those factors. Our problem however lies in the fact that many times the NWS issues a tornado warning, and we sound the sirens, and nothing materializes, for which as an emergency manager I am thankfull. The problem here though is that people can become complacent i.e. the "boy who cried wolf", the public can become desensitized to the sirens and not take them seriously. This is when it becomes a problem.

I think that rather than depending on sirens so much, as the folks in rural Fulton County discovered last spring, they would be better off investing in a weather radio/all hazzards radio. I have to give Rick in Van Wert County credit, his program they have there is working well, as the events of November 2002 showed.

 

[rdale]

Most studies show that the "cry wolf" phenomena does not exist. When people get a warning, that is part of the process they use in analyzing a response, but it does not instantly make people ignore them.

 

[Bob Hartig]

Most studies show that the "cry wolf" phenomena does not exist. When people get a warning, that is part of the process they use in analyzing a response, but it does not instantly make people ignore them.

I guess I wasn't clear what I meant by crying wolf. Sounding a siren too far in advance would introduce an urgency and immediacy that didn't yet exist. That's what I was referring to. I wasn't by any means suggesting that people's response to a community siren would be to ignore it. I'm sure they'd pay attention to it. But, as has been pointed out, the passing of minutes can blunt that sense of urgency to the point where folks hiding in their basements or closets shrug their shoulders and think, "Hmmmpph!" and leave safety right at the time when maybe the sirens should start sounding.

I'm writing this with due respect for your take on the emphasis placed on sirens, Rob. In my mind, they're one part of a multi-pronged warning system, effective or possibly counterproductive depending on how they're used.

ADDENDUM: Oops, just read the post preceding Rob's and realize that he was responding to it, not mine. That's okay--this post makes its own point, so I'll let it stand.

 

[rdale]

Good points regardless of who was responding to what Bob

 

[Danny Neal]

From someone on the other side of the coin, as someone who works in emergency management, part of my job is puble safety/notification. Anythine there is severe weather we need to make sure the public in our jurisdiction has ample warning to find shelter or a place of safety.

That being said, in our area (NW Ohio) we do not get as many tornadic events as the plains states do, however when we do, they often pop up quick, or are part of a very fast moving system. In our case ample lead time is highly important because of those factors. Our problem however lies in the fact that many times the NWS issues a tornado warning, and we sound the sirens, and nothing materializes, for which as an emergency manager I am thankfull. The problem here though is that people can become complacent i.e. the "boy who cried wolf", the public can become desensitized to the sirens and not take them seriously. This is when it becomes a problem.

I think that rather than depending on sirens so much, as the folks in rural Fulton County discovered last spring, they would be better off investing in a weather radio/all hazzards radio. I have to give Rick in Van Wert County credit, his program they have there is working well, as the events of November 2002 showed.

Explain to me your specific job when severe weather rolls into your area. Is it specifically to set off sirens? I want to formulate a response and have one, but I want to have all my facts straight and find out what goes on in Emergency Management and your situation. *Genuinely interested, no flames intended lol*

 

[Jesse Risley]

When I was on Don Marsh's radio show on KWMU (NPR) yesterday morning, Don brought up (again, paraphrasing) sirens going off in too many areas for too long. I explained that I thought the NWS did a very good job and that 30 years ago, there likely would have been no warning and people would have been killed.

That said, this and previous experiences are slowly persuading me that there can be too much warning for a tornado and that number seems to be around 30 to 45 minutes. I don't know what others think but I believe this is a topic that is worthy of more investigation.

I'm not so sure there is a right answer to that question, because human behavior and responsiveness to a perceived threat like SVR weather will be highly variable from one person to the next. I'd say the most salient solution is to give as reasonable amount of time for advanced warning as possible, while highlighting timing and impacts at any one given location even more so when extensive lead time is given. What people choose to do with that information, assuming it actually reaches the general public, becomes more of a matter of personal responsibility. Regardless of which way you go with a policy on lead time, it's likely that sooner or later there will inadvertently be a causalty at least indirectly related to that policy similar to one of the scenarios mentioned above.