Drew.Gardonia
This all came about this past Wed morning, when an EF-0 hit Murfreesboro. I was blasted out of bed by sirens, so I of course went to investigate being the storm chaser that I am, and also in official status as an MTSU Sideline Photographer it's my job to get pics of the storms/damage.
So after I make it back to the apt, I get on my facebook to see one of the most ignorant statuses I've ever seen in my life (the person's name/gender will be excluded to protect their privacy, even much as I would love to really embarrass this ignoramus for their ignorance, I won't.)
"The NWS needs to not give out false warnings of a tornado, just because there is rotation in the clouds, we didn't even have a tornado, yet they're issue warnings and it's ridiculous."
Really now? Yes, we did have a tornado, it was an EF-0, it did touchdown, it was confirmed. (keep in mind this is 20/20 hindsight, because there was no survey to confirm at the time), I'm betting said person feels about as ridiculous as their statement on facebook about now.
http://www.wgnsradio.com/two-tornadoes-straight-line-winds-confirmed-in-rutherford-county/27329/
Apparently this person felt so disrespected by the warnings because said person was woken up out of bed, they felt the need to gripe about it on facebook, and it angered me because we actually did have a tornado here, not rotation in the clouds, not just straight line winds, but we had a confirmed EF-0 tornado on the ground.
I discussed this with said person and here's the feedback I got
Now I agree to an extent about issuing a tornado warning based on rotation in the clouds, it does desensitize the public in terms of actual imminent danger factor. Too many false warnings, and people start to ignore them.
Unfortunately, this is currently the best system we have. The NWS would be legally liable if they didn't issue a warning based on rotation, and then a tornado did touch down and a bunch of people got hurt or killed. Sadly it's a Catch 22, and until the technology improves to make it better, it's all there is to work with.
Spotters are good for verification, but you can't expect a spotter to always be available to confirm. You also can't rely on the general public to validate a tornado, because some people just get so excited they see what they want to see, rather than what they really did see.
I do not agree in any way shape or form, that warnings based on rotation hurt/kill MORE people. The NWS has an incredible track record of saving lives with warnings over the past 50 years since pre-warning technology became available, and it's definitely come a long way since the 1950's, landmark strides I'd venture to say. But as we know it's NOT GOOD ENOUGH yet.
I was also talking with my dad about this, and he brought up a very valid point because he too is tired of false warnings based on rotation, he just wanted to know where the actual tornado was and what direction it was headed and did it affect him and was he in the path?
Basically what he was saying is there has to be something that scientists can find that is obviously different, be it a mathematical algorithm, one of the ingredients for tornadoes (shear, instability, helicity values, ehi, etc, something that's being overlooked somewhere, that could plausibly tell meteorologists that this cell will or won't put a tornado down). I know they're pretty unpredictable, but I find it hard to believe that we can now predict severe weather outbreaks 5 - 7 days in advance, but we can't seem to find one telltale signal in these storms to discern between a cell that will only rotate as opposed to one that will actually put down a tornado on the ground. (i realize not EVERYTHING is as cut and dry as I make it sound).
Scientists recently found a code in cancer, that determines that for every so many cigarettes you smoke, x amount of genes in your body will have an error that leads to cancer. Similarly scientists are cracking all kinds of genetic and geoscientific codes in other areas of science, so why wouldn't there be one for meteorology?
The code is out there somewhere, and the scientist(s) that crack it, will be overnight billionaires.
I'd like to hear some more qualified responses to this discussion and maybe this will give someone an idea or whatever, and someone finds out what it is.
So after I make it back to the apt, I get on my facebook to see one of the most ignorant statuses I've ever seen in my life (the person's name/gender will be excluded to protect their privacy, even much as I would love to really embarrass this ignoramus for their ignorance, I won't.)
"The NWS needs to not give out false warnings of a tornado, just because there is rotation in the clouds, we didn't even have a tornado, yet they're issue warnings and it's ridiculous."
Really now? Yes, we did have a tornado, it was an EF-0, it did touchdown, it was confirmed. (keep in mind this is 20/20 hindsight, because there was no survey to confirm at the time), I'm betting said person feels about as ridiculous as their statement on facebook about now.
http://www.wgnsradio.com/two-tornadoes-straight-line-winds-confirmed-in-rutherford-county/27329/
Apparently this person felt so disrespected by the warnings because said person was woken up out of bed, they felt the need to gripe about it on facebook, and it angered me because we actually did have a tornado here, not rotation in the clouds, not just straight line winds, but we had a confirmed EF-0 tornado on the ground.
I discussed this with said person and here's the feedback I got
"issuing warnings so often off WSR88D decreases awareness, and people ignore the warnings. Most of the storms that the media, and resultingly the NWS, call severe aren't meteorologically defined as severe.
spotters are more reliable than radar when issuing warnings, because people take heed of that. Most people just complain about the warnings now, and they have this false sense of security, leading to more deaths and injuries."
Now I agree to an extent about issuing a tornado warning based on rotation in the clouds, it does desensitize the public in terms of actual imminent danger factor. Too many false warnings, and people start to ignore them.
Unfortunately, this is currently the best system we have. The NWS would be legally liable if they didn't issue a warning based on rotation, and then a tornado did touch down and a bunch of people got hurt or killed. Sadly it's a Catch 22, and until the technology improves to make it better, it's all there is to work with.
Spotters are good for verification, but you can't expect a spotter to always be available to confirm. You also can't rely on the general public to validate a tornado, because some people just get so excited they see what they want to see, rather than what they really did see.
I do not agree in any way shape or form, that warnings based on rotation hurt/kill MORE people. The NWS has an incredible track record of saving lives with warnings over the past 50 years since pre-warning technology became available, and it's definitely come a long way since the 1950's, landmark strides I'd venture to say. But as we know it's NOT GOOD ENOUGH yet.
I was also talking with my dad about this, and he brought up a very valid point because he too is tired of false warnings based on rotation, he just wanted to know where the actual tornado was and what direction it was headed and did it affect him and was he in the path?
"There has to be something that's discernible, or different or telltale within a storm that puts down a tornado as opposed to storm that only shows rotation".
Basically what he was saying is there has to be something that scientists can find that is obviously different, be it a mathematical algorithm, one of the ingredients for tornadoes (shear, instability, helicity values, ehi, etc, something that's being overlooked somewhere, that could plausibly tell meteorologists that this cell will or won't put a tornado down). I know they're pretty unpredictable, but I find it hard to believe that we can now predict severe weather outbreaks 5 - 7 days in advance, but we can't seem to find one telltale signal in these storms to discern between a cell that will only rotate as opposed to one that will actually put down a tornado on the ground. (i realize not EVERYTHING is as cut and dry as I make it sound).
Scientists recently found a code in cancer, that determines that for every so many cigarettes you smoke, x amount of genes in your body will have an error that leads to cancer. Similarly scientists are cracking all kinds of genetic and geoscientific codes in other areas of science, so why wouldn't there be one for meteorology?
The code is out there somewhere, and the scientist(s) that crack it, will be overnight billionaires.
I'd like to hear some more qualified responses to this discussion and maybe this will give someone an idea or whatever, and someone finds out what it is.