"TORNADO EMERGENCY"

[Brett Adair]

I live in the BMX (Birmingham, Alabama) WFO coverage area and this is a practice that we have been using here as well for quite some time as a matter of fact. Our TV met's express the concern during tornado warnings, but when the tornado emergeny statement is made they use much more urgency on TV and explain what the "Tornado Emergency" means. I honestly think that all offices/media outlets should practice this.

 

[rdale]

The prompt for the warning (siting or radar-indicated), the location, and the estimated direction and speed of movement are always indicated.

Agreed. If you read the text of a TOR or SVR, you'll see there is MUCH more text that is not crawled. Whether it was doppler indicated or spotted, and the Call To Action statements - I've never seen that (which i usually more than half of the bulletin) in a crawl. You are saying that the stations you watch include things like: 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.

in the crawl too?

 

[rdale]

And RDale your right many stations wont have their alert system set up to run followup SWS crawls (some do though) but the met in the studio will read it and tell the people about it like they did friday and it will go out on NOAA radio.

What I'm saying though is that the TV met didn't need to see the words "tornado emergency" - he read that a mile wide massive wedge was spotted, and his radar showed that it was headed towards the town. Most TV mets are smart enough to realize that's a BAD situation...

What should the criteria be for the EMERGENCY category? Why was one issued on Saturday and yet the storm wasn't a major player? How do we expect people to take "regular" TORs seriously if they get to wait for an EMERGENCY?

 

[Brent A. Clair]

I am kind of torn between the two arguements here. First off, any time that you use emphatic language in any situation, it does get a larger response. Example: a tornado is on the ground OR a EXTREMELY LARGE tornado is on the ground. Now that is a basic and generic example, but two words make the statement stand out. Whenever you use the word "emergency" people tend to listen. I think that last weekend was a perfect example of how using the right words conveyed the severity of the situation.

ON THE OTHER HAND...

The NWS and other agencies must be VERY careful on how to use this term. It has been mentioned several times before, but overuse of the term will lead to complacency.

"Oh, it's just an emergency, I'll wait and see. It's not like it's a catastrophic tornado warning."

And the cycle continues upward. Next will be a deadly warning, then an armageadon warning and so on until people don't listen to weather reports anymore because they think they know everything better than anyone.

Just wait until we don't use the word "emergency" and we heard the famous quote..............

"WE DIDN'T GET ANY WARNING. IT JUST HAPPENED!"

 

[Bob Hartig]

There is a difference between a warning and an emergency. The word emergency is vigorous, imminent, and it grabs attention. People understand that. The people at Greensburg certainly did and it saved their lives. The language worked and that's what matters. Not protocol but lives saved. When you're burying your loved one, you don't much care for communication theories.

The concern is that this approach may become overworked and lose its punch. But I doubt the cry-wolf effect is likely to happen. I'm willing to bet the survivors of Friday's storm would say that when a crisis of that magnitude is minutes away, those in Mike's shoes need to do everything within their power to break through the usual verbiage in order to inspire immediate action. It's a judgment call. It's not going to be perfect. But anything less is a disservice to those whose lives hang in the balance. Mike came through like a star.

 

[Mike Johnston]

Agreed. If you read the text of a TOR or SVR, you'll see there is MUCH more text that is not crawled. Whether it was doppler indicated or spotted, and the Call To Action statements - I've never seen that (which i usually more than half of the bulletin) in a crawl. You are saying that the stations you watch include things like: 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.


Yes, more often than not the standard safety language is seen when warnings are issued. Always, the info re: initiation of warning, and estimated location, speed and direction are included. I would be surprised to learn of any different practice that would truncate warning language to a point that little or no specific information is conveyed. Like I said, people basically want to know "what, when and where" and any weather communication that falls short of this is deficient.

As to the "tornado emergency", of course we all know it is not a separate product. It is language sparingly used, but hopefully effective when it is used.

 

[Jay McCoy]

Agreed. If you read the text of a TOR or SVR, you'll see there is MUCH more text that is not crawled. Whether it was doppler indicated or spotted, and the Call To Action statements - I've never seen that (which i usually more than half of the bulletin) in a crawl. You are saying that the stations you watch include things like: 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.

in the crawl too?

In this area at least..YES!!! They run the entire crawl word for word as it is written. Sometimes you even see the lat/long numbers at the end. Many tv station warning systems like "1st alert" are set up to convert a warning message directly into a crawl and run automatically without any input from the station itself. Usually repeats 1 time.

Now after the fact the station met can create his own crawl updating the situation and they may shorten or edit the original crawl adding their own chaser reports etc.. into it.

 

[Jarrod Cook]

Definitely an interesting debate. I do think the use of the "Tornado Emergency" in the SVS products is useful and gets the point across. However, in the past it seems that this is only used what a large population center is in the path of a large, violent tornado. What about smaller communities of only a couple hundred people? One thing that comes to mind is that if this phrase becomes more widely used for larger communities, is that once a tornado hits a small town, those residents may complain that they didn't hear the "tornado emergency" for their town. 10,000 people or 100 people in a town doesn't matter, there are still lives at risk...and if the NWS starts using these phrases more often, they'll need to use the phrases for every population center in the path of a tornado...which basically is what the standard tornado warning is now. This goes back to what some posters mentioned about people saying "We didn't get word of an emergency, so we didn't take shelter.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

I'll echo the sentiments of most others here -- Mike U, NWSFO DDC, local EMs, and the entire warning system worked well, and it's nearly certain that it saved lives.

I actually would NOT like to see "Tornado Emergency" become an "official" term. Soon after it becomes official, it becomes political. When a big town gets hit, and a tornado emergency isn't issued, people will come out crying about "Why wasn't a tornado emergency issued for me town?" or something of the like. I think that's part of the reason why the False Alarm Rate for tornado warning (currently near 75%) is so high -- warning mets can't afford to miss a tornado, particularly one that causes damage, injuries, and/or fatalities. As soon as a tornado event is missed, you have politicians crying foul, citizens demanding an inquiry, and others who want to see heads roll, regardless of how predictable the event actually was (e.g. the night-time tornado that occurred in the northwestern Twin Cities, MN, metro area last fall / late summer). If the "Tornado Emergency" stays "unofficial", there'll be little basis for crying foul, and I don't think there'll be much in the way of exterior pressure to warn-warn-warn.

FWIW, I do think the Emergency text has a place -- it grabs people's attention more than an "ordinary" tornado warning. Then again, I also feel that we should have a "Very Severe Thunderstorm Warning" or "Extremely Severe Thunderstorm Warning" for those storms that present an enhanced threat to life and property (e.g. those containing 100 mph straight-line winds). We have PDS watches, and these would act like PDS warnings.

The Tornado Emergency verbage is also likely only used once or twice a year across the country, and I certainly think it's grabs people's attention.

 

[Mike Umscheid]

Mike Umscheid had already stated earlier that the words "TORNADO EMERGENCY" were positively going on the crawl on the TV. Mike confirmed this himself. It is indeed THIS text that got the town to shelter.

This isn't entirely correct. The particular TV met was already on the air... had been live on the air sometime... and basically read the SVS live over the air. I remember him saying "The National Weather Service has just put out a Tornado Emergency... this is the strongest wording they will ever use... which is extremely rare..." something to that effect. It wasn't a crawl. They did a good job in conveying the rarity of the situation and how urgent it really was

 

[Mike Smith]

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

 

[Nick Parker]

Awesome job to all who were involved with the detection and warning with this incredable display of mother nature!

I believe Mike and his crew kicked some serious tail that night. We ALL KNOW deep down if it wasn't for a crew like that, countless more lives WOULD HAVE been lost.

Lets just quit the debating though, whats done is done. They did all that they could and thats that......plain and simple. Just let the system work how it was designed. Trial and error. It seemed to work quite well this time.......

 

[Joe Nield]

I would like to be the n-th person to commend Mike and the DDC staff for their work that night. I commend him for the use of the Tornado Emergency wording, and I hope for the sake of the people he serves that it is the first and only time it is required of him.

An interesting note from the May 3, 1999 service assessment, when Norman became the first to use Tornado Emergency wording...

"FACT: At 6:57 PM, NWSFO Norman issued a uniquely worded SVS (headlined "TORNADO EMERGENCY IN SOUTH OKLAHOMA CITY METRO AREA") which heightened awareness of this serious situation. It urged people in Moore and south Oklahoma City to take immediate tornado precautions (25 minutes before the tornado entered those areas). This SVS was formatted with the Specific Area Message Encoder (SAME) information and was tone-alerted on NWR. The phrase was picked up by media outlets and credited with adding the emphasis that prompted numerous residents to action."

Seems to me that the Greensburg situation was precisely what such a best practice was envisioned for.

I had not considered the possibility of tone-alerting SVSs before, but it would certainly be a viable option for the most dangerous of weather situations. Notably, some offices have gone live on NWR giving rapid updates on severe weather situations as well. That comes down to available staffing, though.

I should note that the above opinion is my own and does not reflect on those of the Federal Government, the US Department of Commerce, NOAA, or the National Weather Service.

 

[Robert Dewey]

I couldn't agree more with Mike Smith; the comparison to PDS watches hits the nail right on the head. It just seems like we're riding on a path towards a world where certain products (watches, warnings, outlooks) are used too liberally, or where multiple products overlap a specific event type.

As he also stated, nobody here is bashing anyone... Mike U and DDC did an excellent job and helped save lives. This isn't a debate about whether or not Mike U did the right thing - he did. It's a debate about the future of met products.

BTW... What is the criteria for a "Tornado Emergency"?

 

[Jonathan.Brazzell]

Over half of the stations in our market scroll the SVS statements. Don't Know where you get all of your information from.