I have cited three (two taken in Oklahoma, one in Colorado) and since recalled a fourth (Kansas), Dr. Scott Lillibridge's from the Centers for Disease Control. All were in the 2-3% range. How many do you want? Respectfully, your response has been hypotheticals and anecdotes. Where is a study showing a different number?
Respectfully, I have never once disputed that number. I have called in to question HOW that number is reached. A quick look back through this thread shows that you have linked only one paper and that paper did NOT explain how that number was reached. I have offered "hyptheticals and anecdotals" that further my argument that without knowing HOW the numbers are reached the number is meaningless.
Are you contending schools have no other way to get a warning? That is silly. There are storm sirens, TV, commercial weather companies, telephone warning services, parents calling the school, etc.
Assume there has been a school somewhere/sometime that got its warning solely from NWR. Would that even increase the market penetration from 3% to 3.1% nationally? If you counted all of these hypothetical instances it might be it up to, what, 5%?
I know of several schools in just the city of Fort Smith, AR who received their warning information via NWR. In fact, there was a movement to put NWRs in EVERY school.
I have not said that the schools ONLY receive their information from NWRs. They may receive their information from multiple sources. My point is no study I've seen, including the one you linked, has stated how that situation is handled.
When you contend the central U.S. is not typical, you are probably right -- the surveys probably overstate the NWR market penetration because of the concern about nighttime tornadoes that does not exist in, say, California or Vermont.
Based on this, then the study you linked to did NOT overstate the NWR market. It only contained information on the 3 May 1999 tornado that was during the daylight. I think it would be interesting to see how many people would have been using NWR if that tornado occurred 9 hours later. Just because someone used a NWR on storm A on a particular day, doesn't NOT imply they don't ever use a NWR.
Any statistician will tell you that a sample size of 65 families in a community of over 500,000 people is absolutely too small to use. Did they accurately represent the elderly, the poor, etc. What about farmers who may have one? All I'm trying to say is that you can't based on a simple survey you can't accurately capture what the reach of the NWR is.
I dislike rehashing things that have been argued to death a number of months ago. While I know some don't like hearing it (and please don't shoot the messenger) the fact is that NWR has very low market penetration.
I won't argue the small penetration of the NWR into the weather information dissemination market. I have no evidence to support or contradict this. I WILL argue the adamant use of the 1-3%. I will continue to do so until I see a study that explains how this number is reached and the study is not conducted in the immediate aftermath of a particular event. If someone wants to put a numerical value on the number of people using NWR, then someone should conduct a poll across the country (or region in question) and should NOT directly reference a particular event.
As a note, two of the studies you cite come from the same event. This is hardly corroborating. Since I haven't read each paper in that edition of WAF due to time restraints, I haven't found the other reference, my initial thought is that the same data set MIGHT have been used by both papers. I haven't read the WAS*IS paper because I haven't been able to find it.
Again, all I'm saying is that without knowing HOW the 3% number is reached, it shouldn't be stated as fact. I will say that 3% of the residents affected by the 3 May 1999 tornado that hit Moore got their warning information from NWR.
in so many words (hope I got this right) that it was not a good idea now that you have had time to think about it (sending out a tornado emergency statement) would you or your peers still send out a Tornado Emergency? Or put enhanced wording in the tornado warning and severe weather statements? I'm just wondering and not trying to offend anyone etc.
