Tornado Emergencies

[Mike Smith]

Craig,

Mike Umsheid and his colleagues in the DDC WFO did a great job issuing the public warnings for Greensburg on May 4

I am the CEO of WeatherData Services, Inc. of Wichita. We are the only company that, to my knowledge, issues convective and synoptic warnings (including tornado) independent of the NWS on a national basis.

As this is the core of our business, I have spent a lot of time studying these issues. If you would like me to answer your question, I would be happy to.

Mike

 

[Danny Neal]

Is there any idea why SGF issued the TE for that one storm and not any of the others affecting the city through the night? I have been curious and didn't know if anyone else had any idea why?

 

[Kory Hartman]

...If the phrase "TORNADO EMERGENCY" is appended to the header of a tornado warning, that will reach many more users than just those listening to NOAA Weather Radio. Many people will read the text products online or through some sort of software program like WeatherBug or Interwarn, etc. etc. I don't know if there is a comprehensive study on how many people receive warning information via NWR, but the verbiage in the warning product will reach many more users than just NWR listeners. Also, let's not forget the growing number of people getting warning/weather information via a PDA or cell phone...

"Tornado Emergency" is added to a Severe Weather Statement (NOT a Tornado Warning)... the product that is issued BETWEEN the start and end of a Tornado Warning explaining if the warning continues (or possibly cancelled) and gives a new storm track and towns affected if needed.

The words "tornado emergency" most likely only make it to airwaves of NOAA Weather Radio, and local TV/radio IF the meteorologist or announcer sees the SVS and chooses to read it.

The SVS was one of the products that I seemed to be the ONLY one using when I was doing severe weather coverage on the radio. It only made it to the air because I was specifially LOOKING/waiting for it. Otherwise, the actual Warning would pop up on multiple sources (Weather Channel crawl, Baron Radar, Local TV, Internet, Weather Bug) and that's all the other announcers would see. The Severe Weather Statements only hit the AP wire.

I personally think the SVS should go away... and in it's place, NWS should issue a new Tornado Warning if the situation warrants... or come up with a new product like "Tornado Warning Continuation" (horrible name, but you get my point)

 

[rdale]

Over the years I've talked with probably 50+ people while doing tornado surveys in the Mid-Michigan area, and I've had one (1) person say they heard about it from NWR. If you count severe storm surveys, my interviews are probably in the range of 200, and I'm still at one NWR listener.

In my group of friends, not large but certainly not miniscule, I know of zero (0) people that have a NWR hooked up.

 

[Mark Manchester]

As ironic as this may sound, I believe some of the de-sensitisation toward tornado warnings is due to advances in the science of forcasting itself. 30 or 40 years ago most warning weren't issued until the storm was right on top of you (if there was a warning at all), which meant you took shelter or took your chances.

Today some warnings are issued as much as 30 minutes prior to the expected arrival of a storm, and while it may be producing a tornado at the time of issuance, we all know how things can change in even a 5-10 minute period, so people on the outer limit of the warning may not know anything even happened.

I think it's this in-between period where a tornado emergency can be extremely useful. After 20 minutes of being in a warning with nothing happening yet, hearing that enhanced wording may make someone take notice. Just updating the product with "a tornado warning is still in effect for......" may mean nothing to a lot of people, again given it could be 20 minutes since the original issuance.

 

[Bill Tabor]

I can post at least a dozen references to the sirens and to TV warnings in the press coverage of the Greensburg aftermath and none mention "tornado emergency." There are lots of storm chasers and meteorologists who talk about the TE, but few, if any, residents or officials quoted mention it.

Yes, but I believe the tv stations do typically read the NOAA warnings and text on air. I know The Weather Channel does and would emphasize the 'Tornado Emergency' text if they saw it.

 

[Kevin Bowman]

i think it should only be used in the most extreme cases (may 3 99 moore is a good example). a large destructive toranado obviously confirmed on the ground about to move into a heavily populated area is one and or any tornado about to move into a downtown area of a city.

it shouldnt become the new "supercell" i remember when it first started to hit the media and regular thunderstorms were being called supercells left and right, (esp on the weather channel pre greg forbes)

 

[rdale]

Yes, but I believe the tv stations do typically read the NOAA warnings and text on air.

TV stations that have meteorologists usually don't do much rip-n-reading, you're probably referring to ones in very small markets with "weathercasters" instead of trained on-air staff.

Anyone watching TWC instead of their local channels during a tornado needs to move to an area that has better TV met coverage

 

[Jason Bolt]

I'm not sure where I stand on "Tornado Emergencies". In my community, they would generally be unneccessary as ~80% of our population take Tornado Warnings seriously and the other 20% wont care how it is worded. The actual precautions taken are something we cannot dictate, no matter our verbage.

One thing I do feel sure of is that the term is used too loosely. I agree the FAR should be close to zero. 03/01/07 in Enterprise Alabama last year- I'm not sure if there was a TE issued, but that tornado was so pronounced the SPC put out a MD stating a violent, long tracked tornado was likely to continue across xxx and yyy counties. That is the kind of situation that deserves a "Tornado Emergency" in my opinion, if such a term is allowed to continue.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/md/2007/md0241.html

 

[Shane Adams]

Plain and simple: if there's a strong/violent tornado in progress (ala 5-3-99 or 5-4-07) then use it. Regardless of radar signatures, if no actual tornado can be visually confirmed, go with a tornado warning. Seems pretty simple IMO. Any town or city will have spotters out there watching their borders, so I see no reason this simple system shouldn't continue to work. As for the TE situations where no destructive tornado was visually confirmed beforehand, that is a misuse of the term as it was intended (IMO), and could lead to the watering down of this term as well (like 'tornado warning').

It's rarity is the only thing that will keep the TE valid. Using it in any situation less than a violent tornado being visually confirmed will only ruin its credibility. Again, so simple.

 

[John Diel]

I still stand by my original comments earlier on in all this. However, stated in an earlier post was something that I didn't realize before. In this particular group, we are all "keyed" to be listening to NWR and the alerts there in. Most people don't have these and listen soley to TV for the information. Yes, Both OKC stations and Wichiota stations do read and get information from the NWS on Warnings. They do read them on air, though not always verbatim. I do know that At least two stations in OKC did indeed mention "Tornado Emergency" on air during the May 3rd, 1999 event and I know that at least one Wichita Station mentioned it during the Greensburg event.

However, getting back to my point. A "declared" Tornado Emergency broadcasted by the NWS via NWR, Teletype, or other means is going to get the attention of those that need it. Spotters, Emergency Services, Chasers, etc. You can't tell me that TE being mentioned isn't going get your attention. If that were the case, we wouldn't have this discussion right now. So, it IS serving a purpose. Maybe not so much to the general public, but at the very least to the Emergency Services that need it.

We here in Tornado Alley, get so many warnings, it does stand up and take notice when something different comes our way. Again, as long as it isn't over-used and remains a "special" alert, then I think it will do some good. I can promise that if I heard "Tornado Emergency for Ponca City" coming out over the NWR, I would certainly take notice. I would be placing my assets in the best possible places to respond once the tornado was out of the way. Not that I wouldn't do that on a Tornado warning, but I would be waiting for confirmation of said tornado before acting too rashly. With the "Emergency" wording, I would then know that I've real problems coming my way and to act accordingly. It's a "heads Up" kind of thing I guess. It tells me that some out of the ordinary is happening and to be really alert.

 

[Bill Tabor]

Getting back to the NWR penetration %, I would bet that percentage is only as a first source of weather info. In other words I think it is almost guaranteed that this is a survey, but a simple one that simply asks the various respondents where they get their warning info from. Sure, most get it from Tv sources - meaning news outlets, but I betcha these sources get them from NWR - or if not the radio then dissemination through NWS released products - such as over the internet. I know the local schools have weather radios in the office with alerts turned on. My guess is that is standard practice for schools across the country. So, I'd guess intuitively that the true NWR rates are in reality much higher if you count second hand sources passing on the NWR information to others.

In my opinion for those of you in the business I'd think this is important info. This is your bread and butter to some degree. You should know what your market is if you are in 'business'. I suggest a real statistical survey regarding this topic be undertaken.

 

[Bob Hartig]

Here is an immediate case in point. The following is excerpted from a tornado warning issued two-and-a-half hours ago:

“…A TORNADO WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 445 PM CST FOR SOUTH

CENTRAL WALKER COUNTY…



AT 429 PM CST...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR CONTINUED TO

INDICATE A TORNADO. THIS TORNADO WAS LOCATED NEAR GOODSPRINGS...OR

ABOUT 10 MILES SOUTHWEST OF CORDOVA…MOVING NORTHEAST AT 35 MPH. [Goes on to list other communities in the storm track.]”



Should that concern me if I live in Cordova? You bet. Should I take protective action? Yep. Will I? Who knows. If I’m Joe Public, I very well might go to the basement. Then again, I might head outside in hopes of seeing a tornado. Or I might simply blow the warning off altogether, because I’ve experienced plenty of other Doppler-warned tornadoes that aren’t really tornadoes (which, considering the definition of a tornado, is a valid point), and I haven’t yet seen an actual tornado materialize out of the whole batch of warnings.

Now contrast the above warning text with this:



"…A TORNADO EMERGENCY FOR CORDOVA….

AT 429 PM CDT…NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE METEOROLOGISTS AND STORM

SPOTTERS WERE TRACKING A LARGE AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TORNADO. THIS

TORNADO WAS LOCATED 5 MILES SOUTH OF CORDOVA…MOVING NORTH AT 35

MPH.



A VIOLENT TORNADO IS ON A DIRECT PATH FOR CORDOVA…

TAKE IMMEDIATE TORNADO PRECAUTIONS…THIS IS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION FOR CORDOVA!!" *

Have you got my attention now? Friend, I am in the basement praying, and wishing like anything I’d brought a spare pair of underwear. If I'm not, then I richly deserve the Darwin Award for which I’ve made myself a candidate.

We're talking about two very different situations here, as the warning texts plainly show.

The problem with tornado warnings is, their meaning is too broad, and that robs their impact. They suffer from the cry-wolf syndrome, and it seems to me that this poses a real-world dilemma for the on-duty NWS mets who must issue them. Forecasters are caught between a rock and a hard place: fail to specify a Doppler-warned tornado, for instance--which is what a great many tornado warnings are--and people who head for their fraidy-holes complain when the threat fails to materialize. Worse yet, those same people may be less likely to take warnings seriously in the future. Yet, fail to issue a tornado warning without ground proof, even though the radar couplets are screaming “Danger!” and you’ll be tarred-and-feathered when a violent tornado drops suddenly out of the clouds onto an unwarned community.

Those are the polarities that tornado warnings have to address. It seems to me that the standard warnings serve admirably to cover this uncertain range of possibilities, an area characterized by numerous variables, both meteorological and human. You can probably refine the warnings, as has been suggested on this thread, but I don’t think the variables are going to disappear, and as a result, I suspect people will continue to respond to standard tornado warnings in a variety of ways that range from immediate action, to curiosity, to ho-hum.

To my thinking, then, a tornado warning is a blunt instrument that addresses a range of circumstances. A tornado emergency, on the other hand, is a laser scalpel, something to be used rarely in a very specific situation involving near-certain catastrophe—i.e. YOUR community is going to be struck in a matter of minutes, YOUR life and the lives of your neighbors ARE going to be drastically impacted, and YOU need to head for a safe place NOW if you hope to survive.

You have only to look at the warning texts I’ve quoted above to see the difference.

--------
* If this warning text looks familiar, it should. It's the TE text that was used for Greensburg, adapted to fit the immediate example but otherwise virtually the same.

 

[Mike Smith]

Getting back to the NWR penetration %, I would bet that percentage is only as a first source of weather info. In other words I think it is almost guaranteed that this is a survey, but a simple one that simply asks the various respondents where they get their warning info from. Sure, most get it from Tv sources - meaning news outlets, but I betcha these sources get them from NWR - or if not the radio then dissemination through NWS released products - such as over the internet. I know the local schools have weather radios in the office with alerts turned on. My guess is that is standard practice for schools across the country. So, I'd guess intuitively that the true NWR rates are in reality much higher if you count second hand sources passing on the NWR information to others.

The studies listed all for all sources/preferences, not just the "favorite." The numbers total to much more than 100%. If I knew how to post graphics on the board, I would post the graphics from Eve's study. I provided a link to one study, you can read it for yourself.

Two of studies were done in the Moore-OKC area. One was done in Boulder. All were 3-4%. These are NOAA towns. The percentage of people employed by NOAA is much higher than in the nation as a whole. There is no reason to think the Boulder-Norman area would have lower NWR penetration. The ICT study found 3%. Rob Dale found 0.5% in Michigan. No one has posted an independent, scientific study that shows higher penetration.

No TV station that I know of (and I have visited them all across the U.S., very large market to very small in the last three years) uses NWR to get warnings. None uses internet. I'm not saying there are zero stations that use NWR, but the number is probably very small.

Most TV stations use NOAA Weather Wire or one of the other "Family of Services."

 

[Jon Person]

If we're going to have "PDS" Tornado Watches, why not a PDS-style warning? Watching the Greensburg cell pass dangerously close to Great Bend, KS, I wouldn't have complained if that town was warned in this way long before the cell arrived, maybe even with reverse-911, if only because it had already demonstrated such severe damage elsewhere. I also like the fact that, in a Tornado Emergency, there's none of the usual "radar vs. spotter indicated; is anything really there?" speculation. This, as Bob said, kind of robs the warning of its impact. There's a built-in dichotomy. I wouldn't object if tornado warnings were split into two buckets: "Possible Tornado Warning" vs. "Confirmed Tornado Warning." I'd listen to any "confirmed on the ground" warning as closely as any "significant tornado" emergency warning, and the severity is conveyed in the first few seconds of the alert. Pithy.