Troubled forecasters seek way to improve tornado warnings

Steve Miller

Owner Emeritus
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
1,793
Location
Moore, OK
NORMAN, Okla. (AP) — Forecasters troubled by the high death count from twisters in Alabama and Joplin, Missouri, four years ago say they must put away their "nerd-speak" and find better ways to communicate if the public is going to react appropriately when bad weather approaches.

There once was a time when warnings went out after a tornado was on the ground. Forecasters now sometimes give 15 minutes' notice or more, and advances in technology help relay word automatically to emergency managers, media outlets and smart phones.

But when 158 people died in one storm in Joplin on May 22, 2011 — three weeks after 316 people died in the southern Appalachians — forecasters knew something else had to be done.

The nation ended 2011 with its second-highest tornado death toll on record, 553. The highest death toll was 794 tornado fatalities in 1925, well before advanced technology helped forecasters.

"We're not giving up," John Murphy, the National Weather Service's chief operating officer, said as he visited researchers at the National Weather Center in Norman. "We're working with social scientists on what it will take to help get the sorts of behavior we're looking for," such as going to the basement when a tornado is moving through.

To encourage safe behavior, the weather service wants its social sciences on a par with its physical sciences.


FILE - In this April 29, 2014 file photo, Louie Short walks through rubble that is all that remains …

"We don't want to have the same system we've had for 20-30 years," Richard Spinrad, the chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said last week at the National Weather Center, which houses the Storm Prediction Center and National Severe Storms Laboratory.

Three research projects unveiled last week each combine data from different sources to increase lead times. A fourth suggests a new way to warn about threats: assess risk in each 1-square-kilometer area, calculate it as a percentage and then perhaps relay that number to an app on smartphones. Updates each minute or two would show whether the threat was increasing.

The idea intrigues David Henderson, a city councilman in Mayflower, Arkansas. Last April, his city of 2,200 and nearby Vilonia were hit by the nation's deadliest tornado since a 2013 twister struck a Moore elementary school. Sixteen people died in the central Arkansas storm.

"When weather alerts go off, people have to make a decision," Henderson said. "If you have an elderly person, they may not have time to get to a shelter," so having a way to know about an increasing risk before a formal tornado warning goes up could help.

The project, known now as FACETS for "Forecasting a Continuum of Environmental Threats," could especially help hospitals or nursing homes, where dozens or hundreds of people would have to be moved in advance of a storm, said Lans Rothfusz, NSSL's deputy director.

A name change may be in order, too.

"We have to back away from the nerd-speak," said Craig McLean, the agency's assistant administrator for oceanic and atmospheric research. "We have to put plain language out so people will readily understand what is the nature of their risk and what type of either preparation or evasive action they need to take and how soon."

Murphy's question after the 2011 storms — "Why didn't people react?" — was rhetorical, relevant and hard to answer when considering human nature.

"There is no one answer you can give across the scale," he said. "The analogy that I use is that, as a young guy, I used to surf, and the National Weather Service would put out high surf warnings. Well, guess what? You know where I'm going? To the beach."
 
People have turned away from the age old survival methods / rules and now rely on unreliable or inaccurate warning methods, like social media. I've spoken to people who survived recent disasters like Moore, OK and I was shocked to hear how many waited to "visually" confirm it was 1: a "violent tornado" and 2: the exact path it was taking before seeking shelter. It seems people are now waiting to rank the danger level themselves or let someone on social media do it for them. The problem with this methodology is obvious: Many violent tornadoes begin as seemingly harmless funnels so people may delay finding good shelter if they don't think it's an immediate danger. It was not too long ago that all tornadoes and warnings were treated as life threatening.... not anymore.

W.
 
I wanted to chime in and agree with Warren. I hear it time and time again that people will not head any warnings unless they personally see the tornado. Whether it's them thinking that it can't happen to them, or they're too caught up in themselves or whatever the case, I think the biggest thing is that people don't take warnings seriously until they see it personally
 
There's a lot of people who think because of "false alarms" that the know more than meteorologists do. Thus when the sirens go off they don't take cover immediately, or at all because they think it's "Just another false alarm" or "Those weathermen don't know what they're talking about" etc. Unfortunately these are the same people who either die in tornadoes or are on the news the next day saying "WE HAD NO WARNING!"

Anything we can do to wake these people up is a plus.
 
I think it comes down to the age-old issue of 'it won't happen to me' - and of course, almost all the time, that is true. There's only so much that the government or whoever can do to apprise people of an approaching danger, of whatever type. At some point people have to take responsibility for themselves - a major problem is that perhaps too many think this responsibility is someone else's.
 
There's a lot of people who think because of "false alarms" that the know more than meteorologists do.

I'm not sure that's a leading cause. 75% of all tornado warnings ARE false alarms, and even the ones that aren't false miss 99% of the people in the warning.

Thus when the sirens go off they don't take cover immediately

Of course not... It's human nature to verify anything before acting. If I tell you a plane is falling out of the sky, are you going to run -- or look up? The issue is trying to find ways to reduce the time people are "looking up" but blaming human nature and expecting that to work is not a viable solution...
 
Thus when the sirens go off they don't take cover immediately, or at all because they think it's "Just another false alarm" or "Those weathermen don't know what they're talking about" etc. Unfortunately these are the same people who either die in tornadoes or are on the news the next day saying "WE HAD NO WARNING!"

Of course, a big part of this is antiquated siren systems that sound for the entire county instead of the areas actually under a warning (and even some counties that sound sirens for severe thunderstorm warnings or just whenever they feel like it). This increases the already high false alarm rate to the point where it's no wonder that people wait to confirm a tornado before taking shelter. This isn't the fault of those people, it's the fault of emergency managers.
 
Another interesting quote from someone I interviewed in Moore was a gentleman who said he wanted to watch it live on TV until the last moment. Not for safety, but for entertainment. He was fortunate that it missed his home by about 1/4 mile -- and he had no shelter plans other than a fortified closet.

I still believe live coverage saves lives, especially in highly populated areas. The coverage is really good when forecasters like Gary England provide accurate survival information. One major irritation for me is when the coverage becomes "chasertainment" like TWC and some local stations where the focus is personalities, drama and live shots of crap flying through the air instead of providing survival information. Just 5 or 10 seconds of drama coverage can cost someone's life in lieu of providing critical information during the same time frame.

W.
 
What I want to know is how much clearer do we actually need to be than the terms Watch & Warning? Back in 1965 during the Palm Sunday Outbreak the terms were Forecast and Alert, and there were similar problems, along with basic dissemination problems. If you rename Watches & Warnings to something solely based on percentage risk for purely sociological reasons, you risk taking a fatal 50 year step backwards when confusion reigned in the Warning system. Add the risk layer to data to the current polygon and county based system, but leave what works alone.
 
I'm skeptical that sociology can provide any magic bullet when it comes to something like weather warnings. Individual responses to risk are as subjective and individual as individual psychologies. We've seen the so-called Impact Based Warnings experiment for a few years now and I've yet to see a shred of positive feedback on that - it's not even being run like a proper experiment. I agree the basic watch and warning terms should be retained. The best the NWS can do is to reduce the false alarm rate. I think more intensive training for the warning forecasters is key.
 
Is it the forecasters fault? Or is it the way the warnings are issued? A warning isn't issued unless something is imminent. But a lot of alarms sound through the whole county even if a storm barely grazed the edge of the county out in open fields
Last I knew the NWS was working on a way to alert people only in the affected area(s) and those that are on the other side of the county won't get the warnings
 
I think part of the issue is many people are actually smarter than the science and EMs give them credit for. Telling someone to blindly stop what they're doing (quit working, quit playing with kids or friends, quit living) and immediately run into a small dark room and hide there for an arbitrary amount of time is probably insulting to the intelligence of many. Tell them exactly what is going on and where the worst threat area is. Don't tell them to take shelter if they're 20 miles off the centerline of the most dangerous part of the risk unless it's a situation where the storm/tornado could very well take a squiggly path and hit someone. Segue: give them probabilistic information AND convey that it represents a level of certainty. If someone hears, "there's a tornado warning for your area, but you're on the outer edge of it and there's only a 10% chance of it hitting you...this represents a low level of certainty and could also be interpreted as a high chance of the tornado NOT hitting you...but you should keep an eye on it for the next few minutes in case things rapidly change," they'll probably interpret it and act differently than if they hear, "there is a tornado warning for your area and the probability of the tornado passing within a few miles of you is 80%...this represents a very high certainty that your safety may become compromised within the next 20 minutes."

Compare that to, "TORNADO WARNING...TAKE SHELTER IMMEDIATELY."

Yes, there are certainly people out there who go about their day with their head stuffed up their ass and need a bit more of a terse slap in the face. But that's not everyone.
 
Jeff Duda, The problem with that is..stating probabilities of impact is confusing, time consuming, and it doesn't readily convey urgency or emergency. In a tornado situation, in order to save lives, stating a series of probabilities will do the opposite of what you're trying to do which is get people to move to shelter. I think the solution is to use those probabilities to draw the polygon, and then graphically show the highest risk areas with a filled in color like red. With GIS technology, and macros, this could be done in seconds, and allow instant updates which could be integrated with WARNGEN. This allows the quickest, and easiest manner for people to see exactly where the danger is. For NOAA Weather Radio, this could also be represented in the text of the warning., and follow up statements. (The areas in greatest danger from this storm include but are not limited to...Cityville...Anytown..& Readyville. Persons in these areas should move to safety immediately!) Keep it simple, and keep people safe.
 
I'm skeptical that sociology can provide any magic bullet when it comes to something like weather warnings. Individual responses to risk are as subjective and individual as individual psychologies.

Realize that sociology has been straight-up ignored in the weather world (and emergency management) since forecasting began. We've always provided to the public what we (meteorologists) think they want, but it usually looks more like what we want. Sociology can say "Hey, stop using all capital letters and stop making huge warning areas that miss the mark 75% of the time because that's hurting public response." The meteorologist says "75% FAR? So what, we get the big ones..." Data can show otherwise.

And you're correct - IBW is not an experiment. It has to be worded that way to get around union rules.
 
Realize that sociology has been straight-up ignored in the weather world (and emergency management) since forecasting began. We've always provided to the public what we (meteorologists) think they want, but it usually looks more like what we want. Sociology can say "Hey, stop using all capital letters and stop making huge warning areas that miss the mark 75% of the time because that's hurting public response." The meteorologist says "75% FAR? So what, we get the big ones..." Data can show otherwise.

And you're correct - IBW is not an experiment. It has to be worded that way to get around union rules.

Isn't it true that the majority of adult Americans today are under the influence of some type of mind-altering / mood-altering drug....whether legally prescribed or illegally obtained? This problem is so widespread that it's even changed the content of our sewer waters anymore. We're debating on how to best connect with the minds and emotions of people that are basically "whacked out" anymore. This isn't our parent's population base as we baby boomers remember them.
 
Jeff Duda, The problem with that is..stating probabilities of impact is confusing, time consuming, and it doesn't readily convey urgency or emergency. In a tornado situation, in order to save lives, stating a series of probabilities will do the opposite of what you're trying to do which is get people to move to shelter. I think the solution is to use those probabilities to draw the polygon, and then graphically show the highest risk areas with a filled in color like red. With GIS technology, and macros, this could be done in seconds, and allow instant updates which could be integrated with WARNGEN. This allows the quickest, and easiest manner for people to see exactly where the danger is. For NOAA Weather Radio, this could also be represented in the text of the warning., and follow up statements. (The areas in greatest danger from this storm include but are not limited to...Cityville...Anytown..& Readyville. Persons in these areas should move to safety immediately!) Keep it simple, and keep people safe.

I agree. I was giving an imaginary text product. Graphical would certainly be a better way to communicate a severe weather threat. Of course, what do you do for people who aren't by a TV or computer or who can't access internet?
 
Depends on your definition of a drug. I'd say a lot of people are on some prescribed drug

Just so I follow along - you're saying that a majority of Americans are on mind-altering drugs that reduces their ability to properly react to tornado warnings? I'm going to have to pull my "WTH?" card on that claim :)
 
Just so I follow along - you're saying that a majority of Americans are on mind-altering drugs that reduces their ability to properly react to tornado warnings? I'm going to have to pull my "WTH?" card on that claim :)
Ya, I doubt the majority of any drug unless you are really intoxicated on it is going to make you not want to react..
 
This was a topic of discussion last year at the severe storm symposium round table in Lawrence.

While everyone was making suggestions how to better communicate I stood up and pointed out the elephant in the room...

The NWS and the media are using every technology available to forecast, warn and provide warning to the public that is available today. They're doing their jobs as best they can.

What they cannot do, despite all efforts, is force that portion of the public who have their heads pushed so far up their anal pores to pay heed. Unfortunately there is a huge number of idiots that believe the warnings either don't apply to them, are too busy with their lives to bother or ( my personal favorite) " when the Lord says its my time, it'll be my time".

The weather sources and public safety agencies need to do what they're doing, find the storms fast and warn as fast as technology will allow. It's up to the public to use a little PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and act on those warnings and let what happens to the rest happen.
 
J - if you do research on alerting, you'll see that there is a disconnect related to income levels and awareness. Now if you want to "blame" people for living in poverty, that's one thing... But implying that those without alerts are only idiots is not what the research shows. So that elephant should be deflated.
 
What I want to know is how much clearer do we actually need to be than the terms Watch & Warning? Back in 1965 during the Palm Sunday Outbreak the terms were Forecast and Alert, and there were similar problems, along with basic dissemination problems. If you rename Watches & Warnings to something solely based on percentage risk for purely sociological reasons, you risk taking a fatal 50 year step backwards when confusion reigned in the Warning system. Add the risk layer to data to the current polygon and county based system, but leave what works alone.

You know, it seems most people I know aren't sure the difference between these similar sounding terms [watch and warning]. Try asking a lot of your non-meteorology friends and seeing how they fare on the topic. Even a friend who is a physical science teacher at a local high school failed to correctly identify them. It seems that adjusting the word WATCH, and perhaps having a more consistently ramping trend of early notice (in many areas, there is no attention paid until a watch is issued, and then perhaps only because many think it's a warning?) would better serve people. And definitely working hard on making warning polygons smaller and getting better info across through them.
Seems many meteorologists want to suggest tornado sirens are a problem. But to me, they create a much more intense reaction in people than any other warning method. Indeed, perhaps a bigger question is how social media warnings and particularly "chasertainment" may be sometimes evoking poorer responses from people. Are too many people now watching tv instead of going to shelter? Perhaps.
 
Shane, in real-world tests, about 90% of people know the difference between tornado watch and tornado warning. You need to use it in a sentence. Tell the teacher this story: "The TV weatherman is on the air, showing radar with the location of a possible tornado, and it's moving towards you. He says the tornado warning is in effect until 9pm. Does a warning mean tornadoes are possible in the next few hours, or does it mean you need to take shelter now?"

I'll guess he gets it correct.
 
Back
Top