Tornado Warning not for a Tornado?

[Adam Lucio]

I dont think a derecho warning system could work. At least with a tornado warning usually the tornado is sighted and a specific region can be warned. The squall lines/derechos span hundreds of mile sometimes and unlike tornadoes you cant see derechos, all you have to go by is the damage the storm already did and radar trends.

Then all the criteria comes into play about derechos, do we start warning for bow echos and "derecho like" line segments etc etc...it would just add more confusion and false warnings which cry wolf enough as it is. We already severe warn for derechos and if people dont take them seriously thats their own fault.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Why do we have to have different levels of warnings?

Because there is a big difference between a storm producing 0.75" hail or 60 mph winds and an intense bow echo that's producing 90-100+ mph winds. In fact, this is much the same as the reason why we have "Winter Weather Advisories" and "Winter Storm Warnings" (and "Blizzard Warnings", etc); the reason for the Extreme Wind Warning in hurricane eyewalls is to stress the enhanced threat in that area from the much more common (spatially) "hurricane warning" areas (though it could be argued that there's very little anyone is going to do upon heading that an EWW is issued for their area -- chances are, they aren't moving much once they've hunkered down). In both cases, it is important to convey the level of impact a particular hazard is likely to cause. Sure, it is, at times, difficult to pick out the extreme events, but I certainly think it's worthwhile when considering the drastically increased potential for damage associated with "extremely severe" thunderstorms (e.g. winds above 70kts). While some folks may not want to be awoken at 2 a.m. for "only" a severe thunderstorm, it can certainly be argued that an MCS producing widespread 75-100 mph winds has a much higher probability of causing significant damage, injury, and death than a weak tornado that's down for only 10 seconds.

I know the tornado warning tends to elicit a stronger response from the public, but that's partially because we have some many relatively "innocent" severe storms that cause little to no damage to the areas affected. C'mon, how often does 0.75" or 58 mph winds cause much in the way of damage or injuries? Sure, there can be significant agricultural losses, but there's very little a farmer can do when a storm producing "large" hail is approaching -- it's not like the farmer, upon hearing the warning, is going to put a giant tarp over his acres upon acres of corn! Meanwhile, Joe Public sees his trees sway and some 0.75" hail hit his car with no consequence. This is digressing into a different discussion ("are severe criteria too low?"), but it is, IMO, part of the reason why tornado warnings tend to be received by the public differently than severe thunderstorm warnings.

Regardless, the relatively lackadaisical response that many have to svr thunderstorm warnings is actually part of the reason WHY we need an "extreme severe" warning. Again, 100 mph winds can cause significant damage and injury, so I would would think than an operational meteorologist would like to stress this greatly increased potential for damage and injury by separating it from the "plain-jane" severe warning (which, in my experience, many folks shrug off). If this occurs during the evening, the TV and other media mets can disseminate this specific info and stress the increased potential for damage, but what about middle-of-the-night events, or events that occur when folks are watching cable or satellite?

 

[Matthew Fischer]

Well they should have issued a High Wind Warning instead of a Tornado warning. Most people don't do anything when there is a Severe Thunderstorm warning. There should be a difference for the Severe thunderstorm warning. Have a Severe Hail Warning and a High Wind Warning then if there is both put a Severe Thunderstorm warning. Though if a person chooses to ignore the warning then its not our fault they get hurt! There was a warning out!

I understand that 80+ equals a low end tornado but if it straight line winds its a lot easier for a broad array damage to happen in a 5 miles radius then in a local area! The biggest tornado that i know of is 1.5 miles wide.

So for the Severe Wind Warning should be 80mph winds or more. For Severe Hail Warning 1 3/4 inch hail!

 

[Darren Addy]

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.

It was my understanding that there are often tornadoes associated with hurricanes making landfall. The land causes drag on the outer edges of the hurricane, effectively slowing the landfall sections, which creates a shear situation with the faster moving inner "rings". The result is "rolled up" air.
Is that not correct?

 

[Patrick Marsh]

Because there is a big difference between a storm producing 0.75" hail or 60 mph winds and an intense bow echo that's producing 90-100+ mph winds.

I agree. However, issuing a tornado warning is NOT the appropriate way to convey this.

In fact, this is much the same as the reason why we have "Winter Weather Advisories" and "Winter Storm Warnings" (and "Blizzard Warnings", etc)

However, the public was too easily confused about all of this and thus as of this upcoming winter, these products have been scaled back. There won't be so much variety

the reason for the Extreme Wind Warning in hurricane eyewalls is to stress the enhanced threat in that area from the much more common (spatially) "hurricane warning" areas (though it could be argued that there's very little anyone is going to do upon heading that an EWW is issued for their area -- chances are, they aren't moving much once they've hunkered down). In both cases, it is important to convey the level of impact a particular hazard is likely to cause. Sure, it is, at times, difficult to pick out the extreme events, but I certainly think it's worthwhile when considering the drastically increased potential for damage associated with "extremely severe" thunderstorms (e.g. winds above 70kts). While some folks may not want to be awoken at 2 a.m. for "only" a severe thunderstorm, it can certainly be argued that an MCS producing widespread 75-100 mph winds has a much higher probability of causing significant damage, injury, and death than a weak tornado that's down for only 10 seconds.

I understand your point. However, my point is that as soon as you start issuing for "extreme" events you immediately lessen peoples responses to the "regular" events. I've already heard it with the Tornado Warnings / Tornado Emergencies debate..."why wasn't there a Tornado Emergency?" However, I'm less opposed to this idea than issuing a tornado warning to convey a high wind threat. If there is a need to convey a high wind threat, then create a new high wind warning or use "High Wind Emergency" in the text of a SVR / SVS and leave the tornado warning for tornadoes.

I know the tornado warning tends to elicit a stronger response from the public, but that's partially because we have some many relatively "innocent" severe storms that cause little to no damage to the areas affected. C'mon, how often does 0.75" or 58 mph winds cause much in the way of damage or injuries? Sure, there can be significant agricultural losses, but there's very little a farmer can do when a storm producing "large" hail is approaching -- it's not like the farmer, upon hearing the warning, is going to put a giant tarp over his acres upon acres of corn! Meanwhile, Joe Public sees his trees sway and some 0.75" hail hit his car with no consequence. This is digressing into a different discussion ("are severe criteria too low?"), but it is, IMO, part of the reason why tornado warnings tend to be received by the public differently than severe thunderstorm warnings.

You've hit the nail on the head. People don't take severe thunderstorm warnings seriously because most of the time nothing happens to most of the people. Maybe this is a question about severe criteria being too low (I tend to agree) or maybe this needs to start a discussion about how we verify a spatial warning with a single point (bad idea). Does it make sense that a severe thunderstorm warning stretching from a state's northern border to southern border and 100 miles wide should be verified by a single point up at the northeastern most edge of the warning? Well, unfortunately, in the system we have now - it does. It benefits the forecaster to issue a large warning covering people who don't have anything to worry about in hopes of getting that one report. Maybe this has something to do with people in severe thunderstorms warnings not taking them seriously...

Regardless, the relatively lackadaisical response that many have to svr thunderstorm warnings is actually part of the reason WHY we need an "extreme severe" warning. Again, 100 mph winds can cause significant damage and injury, so I would would think than an operational meteorologist would like to stress this greatly increased potential for damage and injury by separating it from the "plain-jane" severe warning (which, in my experience, many folks shrug off). If this occurs during the evening, the TV and other media mets can disseminate this specific info and stress the increased potential for damage, but what about middle-of-the-night events, or events that occur when folks are watching cable or satellite?

I agree, something needs to be done, but using a tornado warning is not the appropriate response. In my opinion, something needs to be done to the severe criteria, how we verify the warnings, and with public education of a new system. If this isn't feasible then as a last resort create a new warning for the stated purpose (maybe expand the use of the Extreme Wind Warning for use with severe thunderstorms and Aluetian lows)...but don't use an existing product inappropriately to try and stimulate a certain response. All you do in that case is water down the warning.