rdale
EF5
Because it was a short term, local experiment the union did not have to agree. That's why something as simple as the threat tags can't be expanded nationally, since it requires union negotiations from the increased (?) workload.
Tornado Warning Experiment
- Thread starter Mike Johnston
- Start date
Chris Nuttall
EF5
I think some of those offices were allowed to opt-out because they're short-staffed due to forecaster vacancies. One of those offices that has declined to participate is down 2 forecasters right now.
rdale
EF5
Thanks Chris... But that somewhat confuses me - how would that affect the ability to issue warnings?
Chris Nuttall
EF5
Couldn't tell you. Just speculating, though, maybe those offices feel that their forecasters haven't received enough additional training regarding the experiment. Being down 2 forecasters, I can tell you that it would result in a pretty big reduction of non-operational shifts, which are typically used for training of this type. Maybe the offices have decided to keep things simple until they are fully staffed again. I don't know. I don't work in Central Region, so I'm not involved with this experiment. I don't know what additional tasks, if any, the local offices have to do with this experiment. I don't know if there are new verification procedures they have to do after the event, nor do I know what extra steps have to be taken when issuing a warning with these new tags.
Personally, I don't like the way it's been implemented. It's being rushed out there with very little research being done. I don't like some of the enhanced wording. I think it sounds too over-the-top given FAR stats. I don't think these warnings should be going out operationally. I don't see why they couldn't have done something similar to the HazSimp project where the system sends two products: the original, operational warning, and the new one for non-operational use until we can see how well it verifies. There's lots of smart computer people in the agency. Surely, they could program something where forecasters go through all the steps for issuing the enhanced warning but it generates the two separate products.
Personally, I don't like the way it's been implemented. It's being rushed out there with very little research being done. I don't like some of the enhanced wording. I think it sounds too over-the-top given FAR stats. I don't think these warnings should be going out operationally. I don't see why they couldn't have done something similar to the HazSimp project where the system sends two products: the original, operational warning, and the new one for non-operational use until we can see how well it verifies. There's lots of smart computer people in the agency. Surely, they could program something where forecasters go through all the steps for issuing the enhanced warning but it generates the two separate products.
rdale
EF5
No biggie - I assumed since OMA was in it last year, they wouldn't need additional training this year. That's what caught my attention.
I think it's a bad idea too, I just love the TAGS. Gimme more
I wish other regions would jump on that bandwagon, even just for WIND...HAIL
I think it's a bad idea too, I just love the TAGS. Gimme more
I wish other regions would jump on that bandwagon, even just for WIND...HAILMike Johnston
EF5
Wait, I thought there were 5 offices involved last year - Wichita, Topeka, St. Louis, Springfield and Kansas City. Unless something changed after the original paper on the demonstration project, I don't think Omaha was included last year.
I don't think anyone would have an issue with the tags, it's the capability of the NWS to effectively distinguish between 3 different levels of warnings - and the possible confusion those would create for the public -that is at issue.
I don't think anyone would have an issue with the tags, it's the capability of the NWS to effectively distinguish between 3 different levels of warnings - and the possible confusion those would create for the public -that is at issue.
rdale
EF5
You're right, I was thinking something else.
Elaine Spencer
EF3
Here are some examples that NWS Central Region is using to show how impact based warnings were used last year:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/crh/?n=2013_ibw_2012_ex
Notice the "catastrophic" tornado warning for Conway Springs, Kansas, on 4/14/12. It pulls out all the stops with the get-underground-or-die wording, but.... It was for a tornado that DID NOT cause any catastrophic damage, death or injury in Conway Springs:
http://www.wellingtondailynews.com/article/20120415/NEWS/304159990
Therein lies the rub, I guess. Since the catastrophic warning didn't verify, that means the next "catastrophic" damage warning is likely to be taken less seriously.
Actually, I do like the idea of stating what the hazard is and how it has been verified (radar, law enforcement, spotters). But I'm not sure it should go beyond that into trying to predict how much or what kind of damage will occur.
If the IBWs are a reaction to Joplin and other 2011 tornado disasters, it's attacking the wrong problem. The problem in Joplin, for example, was NOT so much that the NWS failed to tell people "you're all gonna die if you don't get underground", as that they failed to state clearly where the tornado was and which direction it was going.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/crh/?n=2013_ibw_2012_ex
Notice the "catastrophic" tornado warning for Conway Springs, Kansas, on 4/14/12. It pulls out all the stops with the get-underground-or-die wording, but.... It was for a tornado that DID NOT cause any catastrophic damage, death or injury in Conway Springs:
http://www.wellingtondailynews.com/article/20120415/NEWS/304159990
Therein lies the rub, I guess. Since the catastrophic warning didn't verify, that means the next "catastrophic" damage warning is likely to be taken less seriously.
Actually, I do like the idea of stating what the hazard is and how it has been verified (radar, law enforcement, spotters). But I'm not sure it should go beyond that into trying to predict how much or what kind of damage will occur.
If the IBWs are a reaction to Joplin and other 2011 tornado disasters, it's attacking the wrong problem. The problem in Joplin, for example, was NOT so much that the NWS failed to tell people "you're all gonna die if you don't get underground", as that they failed to state clearly where the tornado was and which direction it was going.
rdale
EF5
Elaine, I'm not sure your conclusion about future catastrophic warnings would prove valid.
You are saying that if Grand Rapids issues one for Barry County, residents will likely ignore it because of that warning last year? I'd have to disagree with you there.
Is there even any evidence that residents of that county would ignore another? The research I've seen says they would not.
You are saying that if Grand Rapids issues one for Barry County, residents will likely ignore it because of that warning last year? I'd have to disagree with you there.
Is there even any evidence that residents of that county would ignore another? The research I've seen says they would not.
Karen St John
EF3
If one chooses to live oblivious, one may end up in oblivion. If one ignores a tornado warning for where they are, they do so at their own peril. Personally, if a tornado warning warning is issued for Washtenaw Co., where I live, and nothing touches down or hurts anyone, I react with gratitude, not cynicism. I certainly was grateful last March 15 when no one was seriously injured locally...
Mike Johnston
EF5
Yeah, I think both Karen and Elaine have good points. From the reading I've done, I'm not sure if there is any conclusive research on the "cry wolf" effect. This subject has been debated at length here on the Stormtrack forum. Seems to me like a single false alarm or close call probably wouldn't affect responses to future warnings that much. However, repeated false alarms over a long period of time must have some effect on responses eventually. Even in the service assessment on the Joplin event, there was anectdotal evidence from respondents about the over-warnings in the past. Mike Smith's book points this out, as well as the liberal use of siren alarms.
The different warning levels imply some forecast of intensity. I know last year some were arguing that the different levels only had to do with forecaster CONFIDENCE. However, that doesn't make sense. If a warning contains an impact statement of "catastrophic damage", then of course the warning forecaster is implying a certain intensity.
As far as the IBW experiment itself, I actually thought last year that such a small sample size (5 offices) may not be enough to adequately evaluate - especially since the higher tiered warnings should be "rare" in the first place. So, maybe with a whole region participating, a suitable study can be done after this season. I just hope a real study is actually done, and this whole thing isn't a fait accompli.
The different warning levels imply some forecast of intensity. I know last year some were arguing that the different levels only had to do with forecaster CONFIDENCE. However, that doesn't make sense. If a warning contains an impact statement of "catastrophic damage", then of course the warning forecaster is implying a certain intensity.
As far as the IBW experiment itself, I actually thought last year that such a small sample size (5 offices) may not be enough to adequately evaluate - especially since the higher tiered warnings should be "rare" in the first place. So, maybe with a whole region participating, a suitable study can be done after this season. I just hope a real study is actually done, and this whole thing isn't a fait accompli.
rdale
EF5
Reclick the original link here and watch the presentation. It should answer a lot of questions.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/93Annual/webprogram/Paper222556.html
https://ams.confex.com/ams/93Annual/webprogram/Paper222556.html
Mike Smith
This is true up to a point. What if 24 tornado warnings in a row were false alarms? And, what if the sirens were being activated for severe thunderstorm warnings as well? Would you still "react" by taking precautions?
Here is an analogy: When car alarms first came out people often called the police because car alarms were supposed to indicate a car was being stolen. Now, no one calls. Why people the huge number of car alarm false alarms have "trained" people not to take them seriously.
rdale
EF5
Valid points, but not relevant to IBW. The concern here was the TE for Wichita that didn't verify, and I'm not sure that the outcome is quite as bad as some are claiming.
Mike Johnston
EF5
Well, now TWC finally picked up on this IBW experiment and presented its analysis today. Somehow, Cantore and his producers have managed to convolute this already-convoluted new system into FIVE (5) different levels of tornado warnings! I'm sure the public will be more informed now. The casual viewer is probably thinking they only need to be concerned about a tornado warning now if it is the very highest level (catostrophic damage.) It's almost like the movie Twister where the NSSL was supposedly predicting the F-scale rating of each tornado in advance. Since Cantore is probably the most recognized weatherman in the whole country, it's kind of disappointing how he's seemingly blessed this thing without any real study of its utility.
Similar threads
