"TORNADO EMERGENCY"

[J.B. Dixon]

I'm not going to go back and re-read over 2 years and umpteen pages of posts, but I think it comes down to the general apathy of the public towards Tornado Warnings. Allow me to play the common man and do some Devil's Advocating.

Listen to the local radio discussions the next morning after a night of severe weather that did little to no damage, and listen to the whining and complaining from a LOT of people who have this overall sense of apathy regarding severe weather and the threat it can pose. They complain about the live severe weather coverage preventing them from enjoying an episode of Lost, America's Got Talent, Dancing With the Stars, etc... A large segment of the general public has become so desensitized by the way warnings have been issued.

And let's not sugar-coat things here: TV media coverage has, in many instances, gotten a bit over-zealous in their coverage of tornado warned storms....especially ones that aren't actually producing tornadoes, but are "capable of". We've all seen this happen. So how do you get people to listen to the boy crying wolf when it REALLY counts?

First off, we all need to come to some sort of agreement on a few things with regards to making that determination. Again, in the case of Aurora, Greensburg, Moore, Manhattan, etc...if you have trained spotters and chasers giving you reports of a tornado on the ground, moving on a direct path (taking into acount that it COULD weaken or take a different path, but not likely)towards a populated community, I believe the NWS offices SHOULD absolutely have the discretion to issue a Tornado Emergency. I believe, sadly, that this is what it now takes to get EVERYONE'S attention, like it or not. Is it fool proof? No.

Did the tornado Emergency save lives in Aurora last night? It didn't have to, thank God. But I would bet you that if you polled 100 Aurora residents today, if you showed them some of the video of what was bearing down on them a couple of miles to their west, I'd be interested to see how many people are upset and confused about the issuance of a Tornado Emergency.

 

[Eric Baker]

Let me preface this reply by stating that I am only 24 years old and brand new to stormtrack. I have read the last few pages of posts but not all 17. However, I believe the use of tornado emergency text is needed. Last night a tornado doing damage was heading toward Aurora. As a forecaster you have to take the stance that the tornado that is on the ground will make it to Aurora. Time is the essential ingredient in forecasting, and thus saving lives in the event of an impending tornado.

As J.B. Dixon stated above, tornado warnings have a stigma attached to them that does not present a sense of urgency. Tornado Emergency is much better at doing that. I believe that it is necessary to issue that type of text.

I live in the Oklahoma City metro area. I witnessed the May 3, 1999 tornado, and the may 8, 2003 tornado. Both of which were tornado emergencies. There is no doubt that the tornado emergency text saved lives. The May 8th tornado was an F4 or now what would be an EF5 (according to wind speed). Again the principle is to save lives, that's the main reason I storm chase. That's the reason why the NWS, SPC, NSSL, and all those entities exist. And if you have to "scare"/introduce fear to people to save lives thats where we are in today's society.

 

[Mike Smith]

I think it comes down to the general apathy of the public towards Tornado Warnings. Allow me to play the common man and do some Devil's Advocating.

I fail to the see apathy about which you speak. The extremely low death tolls from tornadoes the last ten years attests to that fact. When the sirens go off and the TV says to take shelter, most reasonable people do just that. If that was not the case, we would not have the 90% reduction in deaths/1000 population that we have seen the last 50 years.

As last night proved -- again -- we do not have the scientific skill to predict the behavior of a tornado in the short term. We should not be attempting to do things that are beyond the state-of-the-art.

 

[Mike Smith]

There is no doubt that the tornado emergency text saved lives.

That may be true if you can find people in the tornado's path that went to the basement only because of the TE message. I have read everything I can find on the subject (and there may well be something on this subject that I have not read, if so please bring it to my attention) and I don't see the survivors who relate that experience.

It is too bad people are commenting without reading the entire thread. So, I am reposting my comment (#56) in this thread:

Mike U.,

Thank you for clarifying. Your memory is the same as mine: Each of the TV meteorologists in Wichita verbalized the "tornado emergency" message but it did not crawl on a single station.

I am not aware of any station in the U.S. that runs crawls for "statements."

Again, MIKE AND DDC did a great job. One can fully and happily acknowledge that and still have serious concerns about using "tornado emergency" (TE) on a go-forward basis.

Here is the crux of the matter as far as I am concerned: We all agree that Friday's TE was fine. It was issued on a classic hook with gate-to-gate shear off the chart. DDC got praise for issuing it.

The next evening a far weaker signature approached Great Bend. ICT NWS (for which I have great respect) appeared to feel compelled to issue a "tornado emergency." It "busted."

The first ever PDS tornado watch of which I am aware was April 26, 1991, which produced Andover, Red Rock and Cowley Co., all of which were F4 or F5. At first, PDS's were rare.

Now, PDS tornado watches are issued much more frequently than they were at first. On Saturday, SPC issued five (more than used to be issued in an entire year), none of which verified from the point of view of long-track F4, F5's (which was the original intent of the PDS).

The tornado watch for Greensburg Friday was an "ordinary" tornado watch -- but an extraordinary tornado occurred. Because it was an "ordinary" tornado watch did we want the public to be less aware? Do we really have that much meteorological reliability (which I define as consistent skill)?

Melbourne NWS in August, 2005, received praise for issuing a tornado warning for the 100 mph winds associated with the decaying eye of Hurricane Charley. It spread across the NWS and morphed into something unfortunate: Telling people in the path of Katrina to go to the lowest floor as a 30 ft. storm surge came in.

These things 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, etc., 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?

That is why I believe the polygon tornado warnings, which become official October 1, should be given a chance to work before we make another major change to the tornado warning system.

I do believe many influential and smart people read this board which is why I have posted my comments and spent so much time on this.

Thanks for reading, everyone,

Mike

Since this discussion, there have been numerous TE's issued, none of which have been as successful as Moore or Greensburg. At what cost to the credibility of "ordinary" tornado warnings?

Finally, while I have reiterated my conviction we do not have the scientific skill to do this consistently well, I have (over time) gotten more concerned about the "moral" (that might not be the ideal word) aspect of this.

Why do people in 'population centers' (however defined) get a NWS emergency product that others cannot? The NWS is supposed to serve all citizens equally, especially as involves safety of life and property.

The TE is a can of worms that would better be closed until we see if Vortex or other research can give us the science we need to do this well. At that time, I would support a reevaluation.

Mike

 

[Jeff Duda]

Mike, I really agree with the statements and arguments you have presented. My earlier post was probably not written well, but I think you explained what I was also thinking. Thank you.

 

[Mike Gibson]

Since this discussion, there have been numerous TE's issued, none of which have been as successful as Moore or Greensburg. At what cost to the credibility of "ordinary" tornado warnings?

Are you opposed to the inclusion of phrases like "A TORNADO WAS REPORTED", etc. in a TOR or SVS? Don't those also undermine the credibility of an ordinary TOR?

Mike

 

[Mike Smith]

Are you also opposed to the inclusion of phrases like "A TORNADO WAS REPORTED", etc. in a TOR or SVS? Don't those also undermine the credibility of an ordinary TOR?

Mike

Of course not. The more information the better. More information improves credibility as numerous "human factors" studies have demonstrated.

 

[Robert Dewey]

Are you opposed to the inclusion of phrases like "A TORNADO WAS REPORTED", etc. in a TOR or SVS? Don't those also undermine the credibility of an ordinary TOR?

Mike

Those statements should be included in the TOR when warranted. Why the need for an entirely different product?

 

[Eric Baker]

I fail to the see apathy about which you speak. The extremely low death tolls from tornadoes the last ten years attests to that fact. When the sirens go off and the TV says to take shelter, most reasonable people do just that. If that was not the case, we would not have the 90% reduction in deaths/1000 population that we have seen the last 50 years.

According to http://www.norman.noaa.gov/2009/03/us-annual-tornado-death-tolls-1875-present/ here are the numbers.

I understand we are not talking in terms of deaths/1000 population, just some numbers I found.

1907-1957 = 10,990
1958-2008 = 3,701
2008 alone = 125
Deadliest year = 1925 with 794

Here are the percentages... Deaths over the past 50 years are down 64% compared to those 50 years before that.
2008 was responsible for 3% of the deaths over the past 50 years, and 20% of the deaths over the past ten years..

The deadliest year when compared to last year, in my mind the most relevant as it is the closest to now, is 84.3%.

I also have a problem with 629 deaths over 10 years being extremely low.
No deaths is extremely low.

Here is a wikipedia page (not the most notable of sources) with the difinition of a TE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_Emergency

It states that a TE is just enhanced text.

 

[Justin Wiley]

I am by no means a professional, but I agree with Mike on this.

Are the lives of the people of Oklahoma City or any other large urban city (or small town for that matter a la Greensburg) more valuable than the lives of a family on a farmstead? From what I recall the TE is only issued when a decent population center is threatened by a "confirmed devastating" tornado. So with that, does that mean the tiny towns and farms are not important enough to deserve such wording when a tornado is upon them? "Weak", narrow tornadoes kill people too. Why should only large, violent tornadoes be allowed to have the TE terminology? They aren't the only ones that kill people.

As others have mentioned, the abuse and overall general use of the term "Tornado Emergency" has in some ways devalued the use of the generic "Tornado Warning" terminology, at least to the ordinary public.

People say that "Tornado Emergency" saved more lives when it was used in Moore and Greensburg. But how do you know for sure? The local television stations had both storms blanketed masterfully. I don't even think "Tornado Emergency" was mentioned more than once in either case by a multitude of local tv meteorologists. I just don't think it made a difference.

I can't say for sure, but IMO, I think the term has hurt the public more than it has helped it.

 

[Mike Smith]

Yes, Eric, but when you adjust those numbers for population, it is 90%. I have a book on this subject coming out next spring and I have done the research.

We are never going to achieve "no deaths" and I wish we would stop thinking in those terms. It is an unachievable goal.

As I understand the situation in Greensburg, 8 of the 9 people who died were in shelter (the 9th being a truck driver from California in the wrong place at the wrong time). One of those killed was in her basement when a guardrail from U.S. 54 came crashing through her roof and floor and impaled her in the chest. One can do everything right in an F5 and still have a horrible result.

Given a population of 1500 in Greensburg, the one person who died not in shelter represents .00066 of the population.

I contend that getting 99.93% (rounding) of the population into shelter is a remarkable achievement, not a failure of some type. I have had people travel to Wichita specifically to tell me about the family members (including an 88-year old who had never taken shelter before) saved by the warnings that night.

However, when you consider that we have cut the death rate by 90%, we have a real chance of doing harm to the warning system if we don't carefully consider the steps we take going forward.

I fear that some of the younger members of our profession who don't remember 100+ death tolls from single tornadoes lack the perspective on what a remarkable achievement today's warning system is. That is not to say that we should not strive to make it better. We should and many of us are currently engaged in projects and research to reach the next level.

That said, we should never view the current warning system as a failure. It is an amazing success that the pioneers of our field 50 years ago never would have dreamed possible.

 

[Mike Gibson]

Of course not. The more information the better. More information improves credibility as numerous "human factors" studies have demonstrated.

What did you mean by, "At what cost to the credibility of "ordinary" tornado warnings??

 

[Eric Baker]

Two examples of tornado emergencies issued in rural areas.


163
WWUS53 KEAX 122215
SVSEAX

SEVERE WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE KANSAS CITY/PLEASANT HILL MO
412 PM CST SUN MAR 12 2006

MOC159-122230-
/O.CON.KEAX.TO.W.0020.000000T0000Z-060312T2230Z/
PETTIS MO-
412 PM CST SUN MAR 12 2006

...TORNADO EMERGENCY EASTERN PETTIS COUNTY...
...A TORNADO WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR SOUTHERN PETTIS COUNTY
UNTIL 43 PM...

AT 409 PM CST...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR AND STORM
SPOTTERS WERE TRACKING A LARGE AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS HALF MILE
WIDE TORNADO. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND LIFE THREATENING
SITUATION!! WIDESPREAD DESTRUCTION HAS BEEN REPORTED. THIS TORNADO
WAS LOCATED 6 MILES EAST OF GREEN RIDGE...OR 5 MILES SOUTHWEST OF
SEDALIA...MOVING NORTHEAST AT 50 MPH.

THE TORNADO WILL BE NEAR...
SOUTHERN PORTIONS OF SEDALIA BY 420 PM CST.
SMITHTON BY 425 PM CST.

IN ADDITION TO A TORNADO...VERY LARGE AND DESTRUCTIVE HAIL UP TO
SOFTBALL SIZE IS EXPECTED IN SEDALIA.

THE SAFEST PLACE TO BE DURING A TORNADO IS IN A BASEMENT. GET UNDER A
WORKBENCH OR OTHER PIECE OF STURDY FURNITURE. IF NO BASEMENT IS
AVAILABLE...SEEK SHELTER ON THE LOWEST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING IN AN
INTERIOR HALLWAY OR ROOM SUCH AS A CLOSET. USE BLANKETS OR PILLOWS TO
COVER YOUR BODY AND ALWAYS STAY AWAY FROM WINDOWS.

IF IN MOBILE HOMES OR VEHICLES...EVACUATE THEM AND GET INSIDE A
SUBSTANTIAL SHELTER. IF NO SHELTER IS AVAILABLE...LIE FLAT IN THE
NEAREST DITCH OR OTHER LOW SPOT AND COVER YOUR HEAD WITH YOUR HANDS.

LAT...LON 3862 9354 3851 9350 3851 9328 3854 9328
3855 9307 3873 9307 3874 9326 3870 9335

$$

BOOKBINDER

895
WWUS53 KSGF 130343
SVSSGF

SEVERE WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SPRINGFIELD MO
943 PM CST SUN MAR 12 2006

MOC039-130430-
/O.CON.KSGF.TO.W.0028.000000T0000Z-060313T0430Z/
CEDAR MO-
943 PM CST SUN MAR 12 2006

...A TORNADO WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR CEDAR COUNTY UNTIL 1030 PM
CST...
...TORNADO EMERGENCY FOR THE CITY OF STOCKTON AND CEDAR COUNTY...

AT 940 PM CST...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR WAS TRACKING
A CONFOIRMED TORNADO. THIS DANGEROUS STORM WAS LOCATED 11 MILES
SOUTHWEST OF STOCKTON...AND MOVING NORTHEAST AT 50 MPH.

THIS DANGEROUS STORM WILL BE...
NEAR STOCKTON BY 950 PM CST.

GET IN YOUR TORNADO SHELTER IMMEDIATELY!

THE TOWNS OF JERICO SPRINGS...WAGONER...UMBER VIEW HEIGHTS AND ARNICA
ARE ALSO IN THE PATH OF THIS TORNADO.

MOBILE HOMES ARE EASILY DESTROYED BY TORNADIC WINDS AND SHOULD BE
EVACUATED FOR A STURDY SHELTER. IF NO SHELTER IS AVAILABLE...LIE FLAT
IN THE NEAREST DITCH OR OTHER LOW SPOT AND COVER YOUR HEAD WITH YOUR
HANDS.

LAT...LON 3759 9404 3758 9363 3773 9362 3783 9364
3777 9385

 

[Mike Smith]

The two "rural" TE's prove my point: There was no major tornado that stuck a populated area in either case. I hate to keep repeating myself: We do not have the skill to do this consistently well.

NWS regulations say a tornado emergency is to be issued only when a tornado threatens a population center. The fact that these were issued for rural areas again proves another point: They have morphed into something not intended (see my repost above).

When I say "at what cost" to the current tornado warnings, I am referring to the fact we are (likely inadvertently) "conditioning" people to expect a tornado emergency if it is really bad. Well, every tornado warning is an emergency. Jacob, your point is very valid. There is an undesirable random aspect to this because we don't have the scientific skill to determine microscale tornado behavior.

All of these points (and many more, pro and con) have been made in this lengthy thread. It is likely everything you would want to know about tornado emergencies.

 

[Dan Cook]

What's the point of discussing this for the 10,000th time?