"TORNADO EMERGENCY"

[Mike Smith]

This is a topic that is near and dear to me for the fact that if the significant damage was extended another 2000 feet, I would possibly be without two of my close friends today. Their house is the red marker in the image below and as you can see was 1/4 mile downwind of the destroyed warehouse you posted. Luckily, I was following the radar that night and was able to get a hold of them and tell them to get in the basement shortly before the tornado hit. They were playing pool at the time, oblivious to the weather, and could not hear the sirens over their music.

Chad, thank goodness you got hold of your friends. All of us should have friends like you!

Now, a question: How would issuing a "tornado emergency" have helped your friends?

The watch had been in effect for hours. The 10pm newscasts out of Topeka and Wichita both hit the situation hard (I was watching stations in both markets that evening). Yet, your friends still were not monitoring the situation.

While I have already posted extensively on the TE topic, I would like to sum up by saying that it is our responsibility as meteorologists to get the best information out that our science will allow. If the social sciences can help us phrase it better, great.

But, ultimately, it is not our responsibility to get people to shelter. That is up to each individual.

 

[John Robinson]

But, ultimately, it is not our responsibility to get people to shelter. That is up to each individual.

Mike's point is very well taken. However, in this day and age, taking responsibility for one's own actions is not in vogue. Rather, it's always someone else's fault when something bad happens.

 

[John Robinson]

In addition, as a forecaster, I really want to give the same service to the rural people of Republic County Kansas, if there is a large tornado heading for a farm in that county, shouldn't I issue a "tornado emergency" for those folks.

Josh has hit upon a point that has really bugged me.

A lot of posts in this thread have said or implied that the Tornado Emergencies should be reserved for the more highly populated areas. So, let's say an EF3 tornado goes through a town of a few thousand people and five people lose their lives. A Tornado Emergency was issued for this town. On the same day, another EF3 tornado goes through a few rural farmsteads and five people are killed there as well. No Tornado Emergency was issued because this was a very rural area.

The TV reporter questions the NWS official on the scene of the second tornado and says something to the effect of "Well, I guess the folks at your office only care about the people who live in the towns. You issued a Tornado Emergency for the town but not for the rural area."

Like Josh, I believe that the people in the rural areas deserve just as much service as those in the towns (whether it is from the NWS or a broadcaster).

 

[Dustin Wilcox]

Like Josh, I believe that the people in the rural areas deserve just as much service as those in the towns (whether it is from the NWS or a broadcaster).

I'm late joining in on this thread, and have not gone back and read many of the posts to see what has already been discussed, however I would disagree with the above statement. Perhaps its my background and looking at this issue from perspectives other than just weather service, however I would argue those in rural areas do not necessarily “deserve” the same services as those in dense population settings. You enjoy many advantages when you opt to live in a rural setting; however you also take on many disadvantages, not limited to weather service. I would tend to look at this from more of a resource or cost v.s. benefit perspective (one main cost being the obvious “Boy that Cried Wolf Scenario” among others) and would say its similar to asking the question, should the DOT pave every rural road at the cost of the entire population, so that rural residents can experience the same favorable/safe road conditions as those in urban settings? When living in a rural environment public services such as roads, water, sewer, emergency response, among many others, are not as favorable when compared to similar services in urban settings, why should weather service be any different?

 

[Jason Boggs]

MODS, please delete.

 

[Jason Boggs]

Josh has hit upon a point that has really bugged me.

A lot of posts in this thread have said or implied that the Tornado Emergencies should be reserved for the more highly populated areas. So, let's say an EF3 tornado goes through a town of a few thousand people and five people lose their lives. A Tornado Emergency was issued for this town. On the same day, another EF3 tornado goes through a few rural farmsteads and five people are killed there as well. No Tornado Emergency was issued because this was a very rural area.

The TV reporter questions the NWS official on the scene of the second tornado and says something to the effect of "Well, I guess the folks at your office only care about the people who live in the towns. You issued a Tornado Emergency for the town but not for the rural area."

Like Josh, I believe that the people in the rural areas deserve just as much service as those in the towns (whether it is from the NWS or a broadcaster).

I don't think it's unfair at all that someone gets a plain o'l tornado warning and someone else gets a "tornado emergency warning". They both got the warning right? As long as the NWS put out a warning, they did their job. It's now up to the public to decide what to do. Do I sit in the lazy boy and ignore it, or do I take it serious and head to shelter.

The NWS can throw out tornado emergencies all day long, but they do no good when the public does not take them serious. I predict that in a few years, the tornado emergency will be compared to a plain old tornado warning. Then the NWS will have to throw out some other enhanced wording to get the public's attention. I'm being a little sarcastic here in the last sentence or two, but I really almost believe that.

 

[David Reimer]

With the Birmingham, Alabama NWS Office issuing Tornado Emergency multiple times today, most if not all not having tornadoes, this may be one of the most abusive cases of the phrase since the first use back in 99. Too late tonight to write a more thought out post but its quite obvious that today was a big abuse of the phrase.

 

[beaudodson]

It was certainly interesting (and there have been a number of comments on other forums) to see the number of times the tornado emergency was used today.

I really think this is going to hurt the whole "tornado warning" process. One county has a tornado warning and one county has a "serious" tornado warning? I don't see the public responding very well to any of this.

I can understand the "rare" use of VERY strong language in a tornado warning (Greensburg), but to just throw it out all over the place? I don't know - just doesn't seem like a good idea.

 

[Bob Hartig]

So the Birmingham WFO used the TE language multiple times for today's event? Words fail me.

No they don't.

As I'm sure many others did, I followed these storms on GR3 and GR2AE for much of the afternoon and evening. Strong rotation in quite a few of the cells, but I'm unaware of any actual touchdowns. The only "tornadoes" I saw were of the Doppler-warned variety.

I'm very much in favor of enhanced wording, but only in exceptional cases. This wasn't even close. It was a very unexceptional case. It was a far cry from a Greensburg or a Parkersburg, and if there was a backing surface wind in the region, it was masquerading as a southwesterly. A standard tornado warning was called for; a TE was not called for, and today seems like a case study of when not to use the term. I suppose I should wait to learn more before I allow myself to feel truly disgusted, but I just don't see how the WFO in question can justify such poor judgment. It's irresponsible as hell. You don't use a shotgun to kill a mouse, and while I support enhanced wording, in this case I will strongly agree with its detractors that overuse and misuse of the term will kill its effectiveness and injure the warning system. A Doppler-warned tornado emergency? Good grief.

 

[Danny Neal]

....this may be one of the most abusive cases of the phrase since the first use back in 99.....

Maybe I am reading this wrong but are you saying they abused the language when they first used it regarding the Moore tornado?

I do agree today/night was pretty uncalled for. I wonder if "history" had anything to do with such strong wording. Meaning such storms have produced damage and destruction in years past this time of the year, so these "HAD" to too. A pretty drastic CYA move IMO.

 

[Chris Vagasky]

993 
WWUS54 KBMX 182256
SVSBMX

SEVERE WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BIRMINGHAM AL
456 PM CST WED FEB 18 2009

ALC015-029-182330-
/O.CON.KBMX.TO.W.0013.000000T0000Z-090218T2330Z/
CLEBURNE AL-CALHOUN AL-
456 PM CST WED FEB 18 2009

...A TORNADO WARNING...FOR A TORNADO EMERGENCY...REMAINS IN EFFECT 
UNTIL 530 PM CST FOR CENTRAL CALHOUN AND CENTRAL CLEBURNE COUNTIES...

AT 451 PM CST...THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CONTINUED TO INDICATE A
TORNADO.  THIS TORNADO WAS LOCATED NEAR FORT MCCLELLAN...[COLOR=Red]MOVING EAST
AT 70 MPH.[/COLOR]

Could it possibly be that they declared a TE because the storm was moving at 70 miles per hour, and if a tornado did touch down, there would be little time to take shelter, so enhanced wording was deemed necessary?

Just throwing that out there...

 

[Paul Knightley]

Maybe I am reading this wrong but are you saying they abused the language when they first used it regarding the Moore tornado?

I do agree today/night was pretty uncalled for. I wonder if "history" had anything to do with such strong wording. Meaning such storms have produced damage and destruction in years past this time of the year, so these "HAD" to too. A pretty drastic CYA move IMO.

Whilst not wanting to put words into David's mouth, I don't think he was suggesting the Moore useage was an abuse. FWIW, I think it was a justifiable case, as were Greensburg and Parkersburg.

I was watching streaming coverage yesterday of the storms and heard them talking about an earlier "tornado emergency" which was issued. Given that no news channel was carrying anything about a significant tornado, I did think that it seemed a bit over the top. Sure, there were some pronounced and sustained couplets on velocity imagery, but it's hard to argue for a tornado emergency without any ground truthing.

 

[Jim Tang]

My opinion: if there's a confirmed tornado on the ground that has already inflicted strong/violent damage, or if there's a confirmed tornado on the ground heading towards a population center, the TE is justified. Otherwise, there is no place for it.

 

[Bob Hartig]

My opinion: if there's a confirmed tornado on the ground that has already inflicted strong/violent damage, or if there's a confirmed tornado on the ground heading towards a population center, the TE is justified. Otherwise, there is no place for it.

Amen. And it seems to me that a TE will be specific to a single community that is being or is about to be immediately and very certainly impacted.

 

[Mike Smith]

I posted this right after Greensburg. It seems appropriate today.

These things [Tornado Emergencies, PDS Tornado Watches] seem to have a "creep" to them. The first few are great. Then, they start being used more and more often until they become less meaningful. Then, they can continue to morph into something undesirable if a great deal of thought is not given to whether it is a good idea in the first place and, if so, what are the circumstances under which it is appropriate use the new special product. Otherwise, in a few years, TE's might become routine until some NWS office issues a Super Duper Tornado Emergency message.

When you combine the TE concerns above with the additional complexity (are people going to hear about these new products and reprogram their WR-SAME NWWR heading decoders for "statements" in time for a future rare event?) especially in areas where tornadoes are infrequent, to catch the "tornado emergency message"? If they do, will they get disenchanted when their NWR's are waking them up for "statements"?

If you restrict TE's to dense population areas, are we saying that a life in a big city is worth more than in a small town?

Thanks for reading, everyone,

Mike