"TORNADO EMERGENCY"

[John Diel]

For our little section of the woods (Kay County, Oklahoma) each municipality takes care of the sirens for thier community. County pretty well works in the County proper and will advise each town as needed. Each town gernerally has their own spotter group that range out far enough to get a good indication of whats going on before it gets to town. For the towns that don't have their own, the towns that do and the County take care of them.

We also pass a hand off with the surrounding OK counties and will also hand off to KS counties via phone.

Osage county, we tend to help where we can as it's a very large county and the county seat is located on the east side. So we help where we can.

 

[Jason Bolt]

Here, I decide which sirens sound for which town. We only sound sirens for the areas in a polygon unless we have reason to deviate. If I am not available the responsibilty falls to the Sheriff or the deputy fire chief.

Thank you Mike for taking all my phone calls and guiding us. I know you were busy. You deserve a medal.

 

[Mike Smith]

Consider the following: a small tornado is sighted moving through sparsely populated areas of eastern Nebraska. Later that same day, a very large tornado with reports of catastrophic damage approaches the Indianapolis Motor Speedway during the Indianapolis 500. (This nearly happened on May 30, 2004.) Should the wording in the severe weather statements issued for each situation be the same, or should the meteorologist issuing such a statement for the Indianapolis area enhance his wording to convey the extreme threat to hundreds of thousands of lives?

An extreme example, yes, but this is a wording choice to be reserved for the extremes.

Joe,

My position has nothing to do with "wording," please read my entire set of posts. It has to do with a "Tornado Emergency" category of severe weather statement. Of course, if a forecaster knows it is a "large" tornado they should say so (which is why I so dislike the canned warning phrases, but that is another issue).

So, I'll take you up on your challenge. As the tornado approaches the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, how, specifically, should the Speedway's response differ if it is a "tornado warning" with the Speedway within the well-drawn polygon versus a "tornado emergency"?

Mike

 

[Joe Nield]

So, I'll take you up on your challenge. As the tornado approaches the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, how, specifically, should the Speedway's response differ if it is a "tornado warning" with the Speedway within the well-drawn polygon versus a "tornado emergency"?

If a tornado was approaching the Speedway on the day of a race, a strongly worded initial warning and SVS would be issued. This may or may not include the use of "tornado emergency" wording, but you can be sure the wording would be strong and forceful. There is no other choice but to do so.

We're not talking about separate categories of statement here. We're talking about a wording choice used to convey as much specificity as possible about an enhanced threat, which is the job of any competent warning meteorologist. I see it as a necessary tool in the box.

 

[Mike Smith]

Joe,

Thanks for the reply, but it did not answer my question which is:

"As the tornado approaches the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, how, specifically, should the Speedway's response differ if it is a 'tornado warning' with the Speedway within the well-drawn polygon versus a 'tornado emergency'?"

You said,

If a tornado was approaching the Speedway on the day of a race, a strongly worded initial warning and SVS would be issued.

If I read this right, the warning comes first and then the statement like in the Greensburg and Moore situations.

Setting aside that the "statement" might never be received (i.e., it does not tone alert), how do you want their response to differ? Unless you want a different response, the "tornado emergency" is superfluous.

For myself, if they are in the polygon of a tornado warning, I want them taking all measures the moment it is received. I don't want them waiting around for an "emergency" message. By adding another layer, we may be "training" them to wait until it is "really serious." I think that is a bad idea in and of itself and I do not think we have that kind of consistent meteorological skill (i.e., to determine whether there is a tornado on the ground that will not lift and that it will be F4 or 5 when it hits them).

I look forward to your response.

Mike

 

[Danny Neal]

(Sorry for the tardiness of my involvement in this thread....I just read all the replies and everyones point of you view and opinion)

That being said....I first want to say Mike U and the DDC team did an award winning job being accurate and on top of the ball when it came to that whole day.

Now, alot of you make very valid points on this tornado EMERGENCY topic. The three prevailing examples I have noticed so far are the 5/3/99 F5, the 5/4/07 F5, and 5/5/07 non-violent tornado around Great Bend. I am almost positive I have seen it used before (IIRC May 8th or 9th in OKC of 03 and maybe 5/4/03 in KC)

May 3rd, 1999: My thoughts: I don't neccessarily think the need for an "emergency" was warranted. Do not get me wrong, it was a dire situation for sure, but the way I see it, the media/spotters/nws/dow/chasers everyone had wall to wall coverage of this tornado. It was being broadcasted live throughout the city and suburbs, odds are 100,000 people knew it was coming. Why feel the need to issue an emergency in an obvious emergency situation? It's not like people were thinking it was a false alarm, all they had to do was turn on a tv or radio to know what was going on. Especially in that big of a population center. That is my thought on that particular emergency issuance.

May 4th, 2007: I feel that this was verified and called for. It was night time, it was a 1 1/2 mile wedge bearing down on a small town that I can remember at least 5 times this year being under a tornado warning. More importantly the storm slightly deviated from its course putting Greensburg in the direct path of the tornado.

"Tornado warning for Kiowa Co. Greensburg in the path of large tornado 5 miles of town heading north"

OR

"Tornado Emergency for Greensburg, large damaging tornado possibly rainwrapped making a direct path for town."

Just made more sense to be more urgent toward an "unsuspecting" populace where storm spotters and media coverage aren't as wide spread.

I am not suggesting this be a normal habit or a routine thing but, I feel if you are going to issue a tornado emergency as a warning or an SVS it must be very specific in terms of towns, roads, and highways impacted. It makes sense that this is only used for a for sure emergency. I.E - Large tornado confirmed on the ground with numerous spotters/media around plotting its move. Obviously it will take a while to be that specific but, the way I see it is if we save the "emergency" text for a true confirmed emergency, then in time, when people hear about a tornado emergency it will actually be an emergency. But then people will get reliant on waiting to hear an emergency and disregard a warning.


So to clear it up, I think the only justifiable reasons to use an emergency situation is:

#1 at night based on chaser/spotter reports

which leads too

#2 on a relatively small/medium populace center that is within 5 miles of the circulation/tornado. Because remember a Tornado Warning is already in effect for the county, this is just a confirmation of whats going on. (Do big media outlets really need the 'emergency' text? they know its coming and are probably doing live coverage anyway)


Last but not least, I really applaud DDC for putting out SVS very frequently. I would read one at 1001 PM, then see one for 1006 PM and then 1015 PM with new updates. That is very valuable information for someone to have.

 

[Joe Nield]

Joe,

Thanks for the reply, but it did not answer my question which is:

"As the tornado approaches the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, how, specifically, should the Speedway's response differ if it is a 'tornado warning' with the Speedway within the well-drawn polygon versus a 'tornado emergency'?"

You said,


If I read this right, the warning comes first and then the statement like in the Greensburg and Moore situations.

Setting aside that the "statement" might never be received (i.e., it does not tone alert), how do you want their response to differ? Unless you want a different response, the "tornado emergency" is superfluous.

For myself, if they are in the polygon of a tornado warning, I want them taking all measures the moment it is received. I don't want them waiting around for an "emergency" message. By adding another layer, we may be "training" them to wait until it is "really serious." I think that is a bad idea in and of itself and I do not think we have that kind of consistent meteorological skill (i.e., to determine whether there is a tornado on the ground that will not lift and that it will be F4 or 5 when it hits them).

I look forward to your response.

Mike

Of course their response should not differ. "Tornado emergency" wording, once again, is a tool in the box to convey the highest degree of specificity possible on the threat to life and property that exists, NOT another level of warning. We might be talking about something that any one warning meteorologist might never issue. I could not disagree more that the wording is superfluous.

We could issue the stock SVS with pathcast updates, etc. for every warning regardless of the situation at hand, but that is a disservice to the public. I have, and always will, strive to provide the highest degree of specificity and detail in my severe weather products, and it is my hope that all my colleagues will as well.

My old boss was fond of saying "tell them what you know when you know it." I agree wholeheartedly. When you get down to it, we are in the business of providing information. That information, in my opinion, should be as detailed as possible.

This is something that is to be reserved for extreme situations, i.e., those in which we are certain or nearly certain that a large damaging tornado is occurring and approaching a population center. I cannot fathom what problem there could possibly be with including wording in statements that conveys the extreme threat at hand.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

I'm another late comer to this thread, but I just spent the last 20 minutes reading all the posts. My few cents:

1. I'm a firm believer that SVSs for tornado warnings need to be tone alerted. These products are used to provide rapid updates on tornado location, etc., sometime at 5 or 10 minute intervals. This is extrememly important info especially for warnings with 45-60 minute expiration times.

2. What's wrong with using phrases like "tornado emergency" to express the level of certainty of an event. In these cases, the forecaster is acutely aware that there is a large and violent tornado heading for a major population center with a very high probabilty. This is rarely the case for most tornado warnings (e.g., those which are radar indicated, and/or those without a large and violent wedge tornado, and/or those not effecting large population centers), which are lower probability events.

3. Finally, the tornado emergency serves a purpose beyond warning folks in the path. It alerts first responders that they should be mobilizing a massive rapid recovery effort. A large a violent tornado entering a densely populated center requires greater first responder support than a small tornado affecting only a few homes.

Mike U. - have you gotten the congratulatory call/visit from the President yet?

 

[Bob Schafer]

Doesn't it all come down to the blase attitude the public now has about tornadoes? With all the video of tornadoes and a "certain" movie about chasers, etc., I say there's a lot of apathy about TOR's nowadays. Why? I'm not sure I know, but I suspect people see the bravado of chasers, and that that gives them a sense of management of the risks. Or something.

It transcends weather. Our society has become numbed about so many things. Seven people died in the St Valentine's Day Massacre of 1929, and the US Constitution was changed. Today that would barely make the news. It would, but it would all but be forgotten in a few days. It takes much more to shock us nowadays.

So when there is a truly frightening tornadic event taking shape, an extra measure of "shock" seems altogether warranted.

 

[Mike Smith]

2. What's wrong with using phrases like "tornado emergency" to express the level of certainty of an event.

From the "Great Bend Tribune" coverage of Greensburg, not the false "tornado emergency" issued for Great Bend the next night:

"Forecasters issue a tornado warning, then when a strike is inevitable, they issue a tornado emergency. In Greensburg, the warning came out at about 9:20 p.m. Friday, the emergency came at 9:41 and “at 9:50, it was tearing up the city,â€￾ Hutton said."

I was not made aware of the above until this evening.

Remember my earlier post where I expressed concern that we might inadvertently be training people to wait until they heard about an "emergency"? Seems like the 'training' has already begun.

I realize this is just one example, but I fear it is now the tip of the iceberg in Kansas. People are now going to expect to get a "emergency" message (at least until Greensburg is no longer fresh in their memory) and they may not take cover if just a warning is issued.

I believe we should make tornado warnings the best they can be. We should issue the best and most precise follow up info. But, starting a de facto "tornado emergency" product/statement/whatever is a bad idea.

Unless someone has a question for me, I'll get off my soap box.

Thanks for reading.

Mike

 

[Greg Stumpf]

I believe we should make tornado warnings the best they can be. We should issue the best and most precise follow up info.

I agree, and in that vein, I think the next best thing we can do is express the level of uncertainty in the product. If a forecaster is nearly 100% sure a large and violent tornado is about to hit a major population center, then say so!

 

[Danny Neal]

I agree, and in that vein, I think the next best thing we can do is express the level of uncertainty in the product. If a forecaster is nearly 100% sure a large and violent tornado is about to hit a major population center, then say so!

Going back to how you say the tornado emergency is also used to alert first responders/law enforcement.....

Is there anyway to avoid putting it in the warning text, made available to the public? I mean most of the peoples concern here are that the general public is going to wait for the emergency over the warning? Maybe ham radio, phone calls, etc to the county center, and then they can dispatch over their repeaters of the tornado emergency? Or would that take too much time or manpower? It seems like that would be a rather simple solution if one of the reasons for a TE was to let first alert know. And maybe it already happens that way! I know in IL around my area, the NWS issues it, and then all the fire and police radios go off in my house, saying for example: :specific tone out: Then Usually "this is for all district 10 or w/e it is, the NWS has issued a tornado warning for Cook county until 1400 hours :end transmission: Just wondering if there is any specific way you contact EM or FD/PD.

 

[Jeff Miller]

Why avoid getting it to the public? That's the whole reason for dissemination! The more people who hear it the better.

 

[Danny Neal]

Why avoid getting it to the public? That's the whole reason for dissemination! The more people who hear it the better.

Agreed, but alot of peoples main argument here is that people will be like "ohhhh well its just a warning its not an emergency!" Although I believe it is the best interest for the NWS to just say what they know, what they think will happen, and who it will affect and its up to the general public to take that to heart. The NWS owes nothing to individual people in society(in terms of hey John Smith of 1423 storm ave we were just calling you to let you know a tornado is coming for you) but when you as a whole need weather info, you always know they will be there, but when something goes wrong they are the first one to be blamed.

 

[Jeff Miller]

I have to strongly disagree. The whole mission of the NWS is to save lives. If the emergency text works, they need to use it! What's the point of telling EMS, First responders, etc. there's a violent tornado coming - and not inform the public as well? The public has to know - that is the whole reason the NWS saved lives on May 4th. If something goes wrong, sure they'll be blamed. If something goes right, then they saved lives. I'll take 50 false alarms if 1 right one saves 1 life. If the forecaster knows there is a tornado emergency - a near 100% chance of a strong/violent tor hitting a populated area - and does NOT broadcast it, and lives are lost, that forecaster has no one to blame but himself.