Tornado Warning not for a Tornado?

[David Wagener]

I think i've seen this before...but it has been awhile. Is this still pretty common practice for extremely high winds?

This is out of North Webster, IN today at 608PM EDT.

...A TORNADO WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 630 PM EDT FOR EASTERN
VAN WERT COUNTY...
AT 605 PM EDT...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR CONTINUED TO
INDICATE A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WITH STRONG ROTATION CAPABLE OF
PRODUCING DESTRUCTIVE WINDS IN EXCESS OF 80 MPH. THIS SEVERE STORM
WAS LOCATED NEAR VAN WERT...OR ABOUT OVER VAN WERT...AND MOVING
NORTHEAST AT 43 MPH. TRAINED SPOTTERS REPORTED 80 MPH WINDS AT 608
PM EDT.

 

[Shane Adams]

Don't know how common it is, but I know it's been practiced in the past at various NWSFOs.

One particular case I remember was February 22, 2000, in Lawton, OK. They were expecting 80+mph winds, and the NWS coordinator for OUN came across the scanner minutes before the warning to say "they were going tornado warning for extreme winds." Most tornadoes only have 80mph winds or less, so this seems a valid move IMHO. However, I still don't think you can compare the two. 80mph winds in a straight line VS a circle are two different things; i.e. apples-n-oranges.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Emergency Management came under intense fire locally this year for not issuing a warning on the bow echo event that ended up containing embedded tornadoes which caused extensive damage. It is highly discretionary, but it has been known to happen from time to time. I was driving through Marysville, Kansas one time trying to stay ahead of a derecho event when the sirens sounded for damaging straightline winds. The funny thing was that people thought it was for a tornado, so they all ran outside their homes to see if they could see one. I would have loved to stick around when that thing plowed through town a minute or so later and see looks on faces.

 

[Joey Ketcham]

It's been done here where I live, basically the NWS in this area have said that winds of 80+ MPH can cause the same damage and be just as dangerous as a weak tornado and should be treated as such.

 

[Warren Faidley]

There is such a thing as a "high wind warning," which would, I think, be a wiser choice to avoid future confusion.

W.

 

[Dick McGowan]

Just the other day on June 2nd, for the supercell that moved from Manhattan, KS to the southeast into SW Missouri was producing softball-sized hail and was producing damage to structures from 80 mph + winds, so EAX used this in their warning text, which IMO was warranted:

KSC107-121-021800-
/O.CON.KEAX.SV.W.0105.000000T0000Z-080602T1800Z/
MIAMI KS-LINN KS-
1237 PM CDT MON JUN 2 2008

...A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR NORTHWESTERN
LINN AND MIAMI COUNTIES IN EAST CENTRAL KANSAS UNTIL 100 PM CDT...

AT 1235 PM CDT...A LINE OF SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS WERE REPORTED...
PRODUCING GOLF BALL SIZE HAIL...AND DESTRUCTIVE HURRICANE FORCE
WINDS IN EXCESS OF 80 MPH. ACTIVATION OF LOCAL WARNING SYSTEMS IS
RECOMMENDED. THESE STORMS WERE LOCATED ALONG A LINE EXTENDING FROM 7
MILES SOUTH OF EDGERTON TO OSAWATOMIE TO 6 MILES SOUTHWEST OF
OSAWATOMIE...MOVING SOUTHEAST AT 35 MPH.

SEVERE THUNDERSTORMS WILL BE NEAR...
FONTANA BY 1245 PM CDT.
PAOLA AND PARKER BY 1250 PM CDT.

Confirmation of straight line wind damage to structures, and destructive hail, they recommended activation.

Reports from that day: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/080602_rpts.html

 

[Jim Saueressig]

There is such a thing as a "high wind warning," which would, I think, be a wiser choice to avoid future confusion.

W.

You would find that with a high wind warning only people with high profile vehicles and such interests would even notice it in my opinion.

 

[Darrin Rasberry]

You would find that with a high wind warning only people with high profile vehicles and such interests would even notice it in my opinion.

Agreeing with Jim here. A special warning for extremely destructive winds (sig. severe, 75+ IIRC) is certainly warranted, but high wind warnings may not get out to the public.

The warning posted earlier should be ideal for the situation. "Hurricane force winds" will get people's attention, since at such speeds that's what they actually are.

I think I read somewhere that the stronger a bow echo gets with wind speed, the less likely it is that tornadoes will occur with it - possibly why they issue PDS SVR boxes for derecho events. The "hurricane force winds" texts on warnings, as well as the sounding of sirens, should be done to protect anyone hanging out outdoors, just like in a tornado. Of course informing the public of this alternate reason to sound the sirens might take some time given how embedded their use is in our culture.

 

[Ben Holcomb]

Lansing, MI sounds sirens for anything in excess of 75mph straight line winds. I don't see why not issue a tornado warning.

I noticed a lot of my co-workers took 'Tornado Warning' to heart. We hear 'Severe Thunderstorm Warning' enough around here for a thunderstorm producing 'penny sized hail' where I doubt most people are ready for 75+ mph winds to come ripping through. Issue a Tornado Warning for it, and people seek shelter.

 

[John Peters]

Aren't tornado warnings issued as an intense hurricane eyewall makes landfall? I distinctly remember tornado warnings being issued as Charlie came ashore in florida.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Aren't tornado warnings issued as an intense hurricane eyewall makes landfall? I distinctly remember tornado warnings being issued as Charlie came ashore in florida.

This used to be the case and was quickly deemed an inappropriate use of a Tornado Warning. They have since created an "Extreme Wind Warning" to be used with winds of (I believe) Cat 3 or higher in a landfalling hurricane.

 

[Patrick Marsh]

In general I think it is a BAD idea to issue a Tornado Warning for a high wind event. SGF has done this several times over the course of the year (starting with January 7 and as recent as last week). I don't want to single them out because I know of many more offices that have done this. However, with the SGF case, I know several people in their CWA or are complaining about being awakened in the middle of the night because of a tornado warning that was issued for straightline winds. If this happens enough, people will start to ignore Tornado Warnings because in the back of their mind will be the thought, "Is this for wind?"

A tornado warning is for a tornado threat. A severe thunderstorm warning is for threats from the other severe criteria. People should not get into the habit of expecting a tornado warning for high winds. As much as I'm opposed to the use of "Tornado Emergencies", I would much rather see a "High Wind Emergency" for an extreme wind event than see a tornado warning issued for a high wind event.

Speaking of Tornado Emergencies, the notion of needing to issue a Tornado Warning for high winds is very similar to issuing a Tornado Emergency for violent tornadoes. Why do we have to have different levels of warnings? We (as a science) are not even close to being able to precisely assess the threat of a potential tornado from radar. Personally, I've seen numerous radar signatures that just looked pathetic end up causing EF2 and EF3 damage. By the same token, I've seen text-book couplets not even produce a tornado. (Let's not even get into QLCS tornadoes and how it's possible to have a significant tornado develop between consecutive low-level scans.) If we start issuing Tornado Emergencies for some storms, it implies a level of precision that we don't have. The implication is that if we don't issue a Tornado Emergency the tornado is not as bad... This is simply not the current state of the science and should not be used.

Why don't we just replace the current warning system with the following...
We'll have "Scary Weather Alerts" for strong but non-severe storms. Followed by "Take Shelter" Warnings for what we normally would call a marginal warning. For a "decent" severe storms we'll use "Really Take Shelter" warnings. A storm with a history of severe wind and hail or tornadoes can be replaced with "We're Not Kidding This Time" warnings. Lastly we'll replace emergencies with a "Make Peace With the god(s) of Your Choosing" emergency.

Sounds dumb? Well essentially that is what you are doing when you start issuing Tornado Warnings for high wind events and Tornado Emergencies for perceived violent tornadoes - you blur the lines between what you are actually warning on and implying a precision that does not exist. Do we really want people to wait for a tornado warning before they take shelter for high winds? Or worse, do we want people second guessing the real threat (both in intensity and in type) of the warning? In just a couple years we'll have people not taking shelter when a tornado warning was issued for a high wind event because they thought a Tornado Emergency would be issued when they really need to take shelter.

A warning should be just that. A warning. Choose to take action or not, but you were warned. Failure to act or failure to have adequate means of receiving a warning does not equate to "there was no warning" nor does it equate to "There should have been an emergency".

I'll conclude with this analogy. Most cars now come equipped with what I call idiot lights. (No offense intended - I use these too!). One of this lights is typically a check oil light. When the car detects you are low on oil, the light comes on. This is your warning that you need to take care of the situation. It does not get brighter when you "really need oil" nor does it start flashing when it gets to the point of "you need to pull over now". If the oil light is on, there is a problem. It is up to you to act next. An oil light on means there is a problem with the oil system. It doesn't mean it's time to fill your gas tank. It doesn't mean that it's time to check your tire pressure. It means check your oil.

If a tornado warning is issued it means you should take the precautions you would take for a tornado. If a severe thunderstorm warning is issued it means you should take the precautions necessary to protect yourself from high winds and large hail. I shouldn't have to ask myself, "Is the threat I'm being warned against really what the forecaster thinks or is he / she trying to scare me into acting a certain way or, more generally, a different way than I normally would?."

 

[Jim Saueressig]

Maybe a new warning notification is the best possible solution. (Derecho Warning)

Make the public knowledgeable about what a derecho event is with some derecho educational campaign and add a warning for it if the winds are expected to or are exceeding 90 mph or something like that. Anything lower than 90 would in my opinion eventually cause people to ignore them because of their frequency.

The tornado warning sirens are primarily for outdoor notification so I think that it would be appropriate to sound them for a derecho warning as well. With most warnings I think you will find people going to the TV or radio to see what its about and whether or not it effects them anyways so if they go in and see that its a derecho warning they can decide how to respond accordingly.

Here in Coffey County we have air raid sirens for an air raid and a nuclear emergency at Wolf Creek so I think if the public is educated a little about a derecho warning and what they are then it wouldn't be so bad to sound the tornado sirens for them as well.

When it comes to indoor warnings the weather radios, TV's and radios will also do the trick issuing a derecho warning if the public is educated about what they are and how they can effect them.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

I don't care what it's called, really ... but I would like to be aware when any storm has the ability to blow the roof off my house. A low-end SVR t-storm at 55 mph happens just about every day of the week in the spring and is about as noteworthy as any rainshower. There's a big difference between that and 80 mph straight-line winds that are affecting a large area and a population center.

 

[Danny Neal]

I don't care what it's called, really ... but I would like to be aware when any storm has the ability to blow the roof off my house. A low-end SVR t-storm at 55 mph happens just about every day of the week in the spring and is about as noteworthy as any rainshower. There's a big difference between that and 80 mph straight-line winds that are affecting a large area and a population center.

Tornadoes are far more common than TRUE derechos. If people still don't take tornado warnings seriously, lots of luck getting them to take a derecho warning without a grain of salt. This is coming from people who don't know the difference between a garden variety thunderstorm and a supercell.

But I agree in principle with you and Jim, If it works it will be a great tool. Looking back at the SPC page on derechos.....

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Figure 2. The approximate number of times "moderate and high intensity" (MH) derechos affected points in the United States during the years 1980 through 2001. Areas affected by 3 or more derecho events are shaded in yellow, orange, and red. (modified from Coniglio and Stensrud 2004).

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6 events.............1 derecho occurrence every four years[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]11 events............1 derecho occurrence every two years[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22 events....................1 derecho occurrence every year[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]30 events..............4 derecho occurrences every 3 years[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I am not sure if this likelihood is worthy enough to implement a "derecho warning" into our current warning systems.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]More detailed insight on derecho occurrences here: Derecho Climatology

Now the whole debate between, really bad bow echo/line segment, and derecho comes in. Like I pointed out above, true long lived derechos are not all that frequent. It sort of compares to the tornado warning/tornado emergency debate :: severe thunderstorm warning/derecho warning.
[/FONT]

​