rdale
EF5
Every media outlet gets the SVS product, so anyone reading "TE" will likely pass that along.
-
After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.
I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.
For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.
From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.
Sincerely, Jeff D.
"TORNADO EMERGENCY"
- Thread starter Jeff Miller
- Start date
Every media outlet gets the SVS product, so anyone reading "TE" will likely pass that along.
Kory Hartman
EF2
I meant those not watching/listening to media. How many people get SVS on their phone, check it out online, hear it on wx radio, etc. How many even know that SVS' exist and that it's a place to get updated info on the warning?
I know from experience there are some media people (especially radio) that will just read the original warning over and over until expiration, even if 2-3 SVS' get issued in that 45 min span
I know from experience there are some media people (especially radio) that will just read the original warning over and over until expiration, even if 2-3 SVS' get issued in that 45 min span
Jarrod Cook
EF2
I get them on my phone! Oh, wait, that doesn't count as the general public. Actually, I think a good number of people check the NWS warning graphic pages. When you click on an active SVR or TOR polygon, it will bring up the text from the last SVS update first if one exists. I'm not sure how other wx websites handle them. I do agree though that the media could read more SVS products.
Andy Wehrle
EF5
Ok, time to engage in one of my favorite pasttimes, second-guessing the experts at NOAA. 
There's been a lot of discussion regarding times when the TE wording was used and people felt it was not warranted.
Now, I am curious as to why it does not appear to have been used during the May 10th outbreak. I looked through most of the SVSs issued by Norman through the event, and could not find one. If it was actually used, please disregard the rest of this post.
Precursor conditions suggested the possibility of strong/violent tornadoes, and that they would be fast-moving. A high risk and PDS watch were in effect. Spotter reports and radar signatures indicated a high likelihood of one or more intense tornadoes threatening populated areas.
Overall the forecasts and warnings for Monday's event appear to have been excellent, and I can't say with any degree of certainty what impact, positive or negative, the use of TE wording would have had on public response. I'm just wondering if there is any specific reason why it was not used during an event which to my non-expert eyes appeared to warrant it.
There's been a lot of discussion regarding times when the TE wording was used and people felt it was not warranted.
Now, I am curious as to why it does not appear to have been used during the May 10th outbreak. I looked through most of the SVSs issued by Norman through the event, and could not find one. If it was actually used, please disregard the rest of this post.
Precursor conditions suggested the possibility of strong/violent tornadoes, and that they would be fast-moving. A high risk and PDS watch were in effect. Spotter reports and radar signatures indicated a high likelihood of one or more intense tornadoes threatening populated areas.
Overall the forecasts and warnings for Monday's event appear to have been excellent, and I can't say with any degree of certainty what impact, positive or negative, the use of TE wording would have had on public response. I'm just wondering if there is any specific reason why it was not used during an event which to my non-expert eyes appeared to warrant it.
beaudodson
EF5
I asked someone the other day what they thought the difference between a tornado warning and a tornado emergency was - they told me (public) that if it is a tornado warning they probably don't need to take shelter but be on the watch for something. If it is a tornado emergency that means that a tornado has hit somewhere and emergency vehicles were being sent there. I am glad the NWS and others have thought this through so clearly.
I also have heard some local tv stations issuing their own tornado emergencies lately. I heard it several times over the last few weeks. Seems to be happening more and more.
In the end I guess most of this is left up to the local television meteorologists to iron out and explain to their viewers. One county is under a tornado emergency and one county is under a tornado warning. What do you think most of the public is going to think when they hear that? One is obviously (isn't it?) more serious than the other.
For a tornado warning we want you to take shelter - for a tornado emergency we really mean it this time - we want you to take shelter. insert rolled eyes here
Tornado emergencies may very well save a few lives (they have been used successfully by a few people) but I would imagine they are going to risk more lives than they save. imo Especially as local stations use them more and more (without the NWS blessing or official wording).
Would love to see a large survey on what people think a tornado watch, tornado warning, and tornado emergency mean. I have a feeling it would be a real eye opener. Not that anybody cares - because we continue down this path.
Nowwww we have flood emergencies being issued instead of flash flood warnings.
I am still holding out for the super severe thunderstorm warnings - or - extreme severe thunderstorm warnings. They are coming. Just a matter of time.
Just beating the dead horse a few more times...
On the same topic - when are we going to stop using the terminology "slight risk" to convey the message that severe weather will probably occur in the region today? I see this all the time on our local media. Slight risk. Most people would take that to mean that severe weather is not going to occur.
Why not use - enhanced or elevated risk? Doesn't that convey the message better?
I also have heard some local tv stations issuing their own tornado emergencies lately. I heard it several times over the last few weeks. Seems to be happening more and more.
In the end I guess most of this is left up to the local television meteorologists to iron out and explain to their viewers. One county is under a tornado emergency and one county is under a tornado warning. What do you think most of the public is going to think when they hear that? One is obviously (isn't it?) more serious than the other.
For a tornado warning we want you to take shelter - for a tornado emergency we really mean it this time - we want you to take shelter. insert rolled eyes here
Tornado emergencies may very well save a few lives (they have been used successfully by a few people) but I would imagine they are going to risk more lives than they save. imo Especially as local stations use them more and more (without the NWS blessing or official wording).
Would love to see a large survey on what people think a tornado watch, tornado warning, and tornado emergency mean. I have a feeling it would be a real eye opener. Not that anybody cares - because we continue down this path.
Nowwww we have flood emergencies being issued instead of flash flood warnings.
I am still holding out for the super severe thunderstorm warnings - or - extreme severe thunderstorm warnings. They are coming. Just a matter of time.
Just beating the dead horse a few more times...
On the same topic - when are we going to stop using the terminology "slight risk" to convey the message that severe weather will probably occur in the region today? I see this all the time on our local media. Slight risk. Most people would take that to mean that severe weather is not going to occur.
Why not use - enhanced or elevated risk? Doesn't that convey the message better?
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike Smith
"Slight" risk replaced the term "low" risk so, to me, "slight" was a slight improvement.
I'm not sure what I think about none/elevated/moderate/high. That might work, but keep in mind that the convective outlook -- originally -- was not intended for the general public. It was on NAFAX and DIFAX only. Perhaps we need to change that mindset and not assume people understand the hierarchy is none/slight/moderate/high.
beaudodson
EF5
I don't even remember the low risk wording
- what years were they doing that?Regardless of what the convective outlook was originally intended for - it is now being used by media. ABC/NBC/CBS affiliates all use it in this region. I see it all the time. Big words SLIGHT - and then the outlined area.
I agree - I don't think we can assume anything when it comes to what the public is hearing vs what we are saying.
Mike Smith
I don't even remember the low risk wording
I believe it was the first two years of the internet product (the change was made on the fax product as well).
Back when it was just a fax product, the hierarchy was none/isolated/scattered/numerous. The first time I ever saw "scattered" was April 3, 1974 and June 8, 1974. Up to that time I had never seen numerous. NSSFC was even more reluctant to elevate the risk category than SPC is today!
Elaine Spencer
EF3
The first time I ever saw "scattered" was April 3, 1974 and June 8, 1974. Up to that time I had never seen numerous. NSSFC was even more reluctant to elevate the risk category than SPC is today!
Was that, perhaps, a holdover from the days when forecasters were afraid to even mention the possibility of tornadoes for fear of sending everyone into a panic?
I've only recently begun to explore the early history of severe weather/tornado forecasting and I have noticed that the "severe weather bulletins" of the 1950s and '60s (they weren't even called "tornado watches" yet) prior to some of the worst tornado outbreaks in history were pretty mildly worded compared to today... calling for "the possibility of a few tornadoes" or "isolated tornadoes" when it was probably pretty obvious to everyone at NSSFC that a major outbreak was brewing. If the Super Outbreak was comprised of "scattered" severe/tornadic thunderstorms, what the heck did it take to get NSSFC to predict "numerous" storms?
Today, on the other hand, if there is any possibility of tornadoes or a tornado outbreak you start hearing about it days ahead of time and with lots of fanfare.
As for the "see text"/slight/moderate/high risk progression I suppose SPC could copy the Homeland Security terror alert levels and use low/elevated/severe/extreme risk or something similar.
Was that, perhaps, a holdover from the days when forecasters were afraid to even mention the possibility of tornadoes for fear of sending everyone into a panic?
I've only recently begun to explore the early history of severe weather/tornado forecasting and I have noticed that the "severe weather bulletins" of the 1950s and '60s (they weren't even called "tornado watches" yet) prior to some of the worst tornado outbreaks in history were pretty mildly worded compared to today... calling for "the possibility of a few tornadoes" or "isolated tornadoes" when it was probably pretty obvious to everyone at NSSFC that a major outbreak was brewing. If the Super Outbreak was comprised of "scattered" severe/tornadic thunderstorms, what the heck did it take to get NSSFC to predict "numerous" storms?
Today, on the other hand, if there is any possibility of tornadoes or a tornado outbreak you start hearing about it days ahead of time and with lots of fanfare.
As for the "see text"/slight/moderate/high risk progression I suppose SPC could copy the Homeland Security terror alert levels and use low/elevated/severe/extreme risk or something similar.
A tornado emergency was in the NWS wording last night as a tornado moved into Peoria, IL. I personally think that he Tornado Emergency is 100% appropriate when used correctly. Last night's instance was appropriate in my opinion because there was a health supercell with an incredible looking meso and distinct low level velocity rotation, with multiple spotters confirming a large tornado on the ground 5 miles west of town, moving towards a heavily populated area. The tornado had already moved through a smaller city and done damage. Although Peoria seems to have been mostly spared, i'm impressed and grateful that the NWS was prepared for the possible magnitude of the situation and expressed itself well.
Mikey Gribble
EF5
The public is extremely ignorant when it comes to this stuff. Even around here where tornadoes are a part of life every year, I bet you a solid 50% or more of the general public doesn't know the difference between a watch and warning. However, when you say tornado emergency that is not an ambigous title. Regular people that have never heard that statment and know nothing about its history are still going to know exactly what it means. Its an emergency plain and simple. Let's not overlook the fact that the vast majority of the public is getting NWS warnings through the media. The public for the most part doesn't have to know exactly what the NWS issuance means because it will be relayed to them by the media and they explain exactly what it means. I don't think you can argue against have tornado emergencies on the grounds of the public not understanding it.
There has to be products available to forecasters at SPC and NWS to emphasize the heightened danger associated with the extremely rare events where lives are at greatest risk. That is why I don't like SPC using High risks and the highest categorical probabilities with the frequency that they do. They have to error on the side of caution and I totally understand their mentality behind what they do so that is a whole different discussion that I don't want to get into. My point is there has to be something left in reserve. It is very rare, but some times there are setups that are blatantly obvious tornado outbreaks with the potential for violent tornadoes. There have been a handful of times when you virutally know that people are going to get killed that day. SPC has the high risk and probabilities available to them to emphasize that. When you are dealing at a smaller scale with individual warnings at the NWS offices, they don't have anything available to them to emphasize the extreme risk in a title. Tornado emergencies do that. It is definitely a valuable tool IMO, but only if its used on rare occasions. If you throw it around too loosely (like the highest probs or High risk at the SPC level) it can loose some of its impact.
I'm not really inferring SPC throws the highest probabilities around too loosely necessarily. They have many other tools available, like the initial paragraph they give with High risks, so they can use their highest end risk products more freely than a NWS office would be able to with tornado emergency.
Alright I've rambled enough here. Bottom line is I think tornado emergency should an option available to the NWS when they are dealing with an extraordinarily dangerous situation. You have the equivalent of that on a larger scale at the SPC. The more accurate and decisive you can be in communicating a threat to the public the better IMO and without the tornado emergency there is no upgrade from tornado warning. Emphasize the threat all you want in the warning text, but thats not going to get the point across as quickly and strongly as changing it from a tornado warning to a tornado emergency.
There has to be products available to forecasters at SPC and NWS to emphasize the heightened danger associated with the extremely rare events where lives are at greatest risk. That is why I don't like SPC using High risks and the highest categorical probabilities with the frequency that they do. They have to error on the side of caution and I totally understand their mentality behind what they do so that is a whole different discussion that I don't want to get into. My point is there has to be something left in reserve. It is very rare, but some times there are setups that are blatantly obvious tornado outbreaks with the potential for violent tornadoes. There have been a handful of times when you virutally know that people are going to get killed that day. SPC has the high risk and probabilities available to them to emphasize that. When you are dealing at a smaller scale with individual warnings at the NWS offices, they don't have anything available to them to emphasize the extreme risk in a title. Tornado emergencies do that. It is definitely a valuable tool IMO, but only if its used on rare occasions. If you throw it around too loosely (like the highest probs or High risk at the SPC level) it can loose some of its impact.
I'm not really inferring SPC throws the highest probabilities around too loosely necessarily. They have many other tools available, like the initial paragraph they give with High risks, so they can use their highest end risk products more freely than a NWS office would be able to with tornado emergency.
Alright I've rambled enough here. Bottom line is I think tornado emergency should an option available to the NWS when they are dealing with an extraordinarily dangerous situation. You have the equivalent of that on a larger scale at the SPC. The more accurate and decisive you can be in communicating a threat to the public the better IMO and without the tornado emergency there is no upgrade from tornado warning. Emphasize the threat all you want in the warning text, but thats not going to get the point across as quickly and strongly as changing it from a tornado warning to a tornado emergency.
Patrick Marsh
EF5
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
- Messages
- 783
I know I'm in the minority here, but I dislike the use of Tornado Emergencies. I think it devalues the tornado warning. I also think that Tornado Emergencies are issued too frequently. Read back through the archives, and I've argued my case many times. I don't want to do that here. What I do want to say is that I know of NWS offices that are already discussing (internally) what the next phrase to use in order to catch the public's attention.
When does it stop?
When does it stop?
Mike Moore
EF2
I'm not sure it matters what they call the situation. I believe the main weakness is the fact that most people get their warning from their TV.
In my area for example most of our broadcast news stations cover a 10 county area. This means when they run the scroll at the bottom for a Tornado Warning it could be for a storm 150 miles away. A few cloudless Severe Thunderstorm Warnings desensitize a lot of folks.
I would bet you could run a message that read "You're about to die unless you seek shelter now!" across people's televisions and a lot would pay no attention. When technology can send the warning to ONLY the people in the warning area via a broadcast TV station I think there would be a better response.
In my area for example most of our broadcast news stations cover a 10 county area. This means when they run the scroll at the bottom for a Tornado Warning it could be for a storm 150 miles away. A few cloudless Severe Thunderstorm Warnings desensitize a lot of folks.
I would bet you could run a message that read "You're about to die unless you seek shelter now!" across people's televisions and a lot would pay no attention. When technology can send the warning to ONLY the people in the warning area via a broadcast TV station I think there would be a better response.
Patrick Marsh
EF5
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
- Messages
- 783
Maybe so, but I'm willing to bet the television meteorologists would read such a statement and thus it would get out into the public.
True story...during the 3 May 1999 tornadoes, an OKC television meteorologist said that if you were not below ground when the tornado hit, you would not survive. As a result, there were several instances of people prying open manhole covers and seeking shelter in the sewers. When asked why they did this, the response was because of the TV meteorologist's statement.
Not everything the NWS issues in a statement is directed toward the public. Sometimes things are said to influence what is being said by the on-air meteorologists.
Mike Moore
EF2
Well good point... and good story - reminds me of some of the things I heard during Hurricane Andrew.
Similar threads
