Troubled forecasters seek way to improve tornado warnings

[Jeff Duda]

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?

 

[rdale]

Isn't it true that the majority of adult Americans today are under the influence of some type of mind-altering / mood-altering drug

A majority? I'd have to say no. Most adult Americans are not drug users.

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

A majority? I'd have to say no. Most adult Americans are not drug users.

Depends on your definition of a drug. I'd say a lot of people are on some prescribed drug

 

[rdale]

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

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

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..

 

[J Holder]

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.

 

[rdale]

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.

 

[Shane Young]

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.

 

[rdale]

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.