Weather Service makes changes on tornado warnings

[beaudodson]

Something doesn't sound right about this story? heh




Story Clip:


Weather Service makes changes on tornado warnings


Tuesday, June 21, 2005 12:53 PM CDT

Special to the Times-Record

The US Weather Service has changed tornado warnings recently.

"It used to be that a tornado warning was issued only if a funnel, which has not touched the ground, or a tornado, which is a funnel that has reached the ground, had been sighted," Norma Duppler, Barnes County emergency manager, said.



Now, the Weather Service issues a tornado for any rotating cloud in order to give people more warning time. "This can be the entire severe thunderstorm rotating or a wall cloud at the rear of a thunderstorm that can spawn tornados," Duppler said.


http://www.times-online.com/articles/2005/...therservice.txt

 

[beaudodson]

This is out of North Dakota.

 

[Marcus Opitz]

I guess that is somewhat already done with Doppler radar indicated tornadoes isnt it?

 

[Edward Ballou]

Originally posted by Marcus Opitz
I guess that is somewhat already done with Doppler radar indicated tornadoes isnt it?

Pretty much, although it does give a little more lead time to the chaser listening for warnings and try and get to the storm in time.

 

[rdale]

No idea why they would talk to an EM about NWS policy! NWS has made no changes in their tornado warning procedures. And they do not issue for any rotating cloud.

The NWS has issed warnings without any visual reports forever. Hence the phrase "DOPPLER RADAR INDICATES A POSSIBLE TORNADO."

 

[beaudodson]

Originally posted by rdale
No idea why they would talk to an EM about NWS policy! NWS has made no changes in their tornado warning procedures. And they do not issue for any rotating cloud.

The NWS has issed warnings without any visual reports forever. Hence the phrase \"DOPPLER RADAR INDICATES A POSSIBLE TORNADO.\"

What I don't understand is the way the reporter is reporting this story. If the NWS issues a warning for EVERY rotating storm then we would prob have several hundred false alarms per season.

I don't think the article is correct. Either they do not understand HOW the NWS issues warnings OR they are misquoting someone.

I highly doubt that the NWS is going to change how they issue warnings. There is no way they will issue a warning for EVERY rotating storm.

Unless I am not understanding the article.

 

[Ben Cotton]

Did anyone else catch this:

If weather spotters see any funnels or tornados, they radio or call 911 Dispatch. Dispatch will notify KOVC.

The dispatchers inform the local media but not the NWS? Just another indication that this article is poorly written. I would guess the EM isn't much of a weather weenie and so can't quite get the right meaning across. The reporter, who is likely even less of a weather weenie, further misstated information. It's like a game of "telephone" basically.


Ben

 

[beaudodson]

Originally posted by Ben Cotton
Did anyone else catch this:

If weather spotters see any funnels or tornados, they radio or call 911 Dispatch. Dispatch will notify KOVC.

The dispatchers inform the local media but not the NWS? Just another indication that this article is poorly written. I would guess the EM isn't much of a weather weenie and so can't quite get the right meaning across. The reporter, who is likely even less of a weather weenie, further misstated information. It's like a game of "telephone" basically.


Ben

Hmmm

Heh...I think the reporter did a poor job on the entire article. Hard to know what the truth is.

 

[Kevin Myatt]

Weather and journalism ... here's where I could get on a soapbox.

My degree and career are in journalism, but one of my biggest passions is weather. In the last couple of years, they have crossed in the form of a weather column.

Part of why I do what I do is that there is TONS of bad weather journalism out there. Not all of it, but I would say weather is one of the most poorly covered subjects of all in the popular media, and I'm speaking as an "insider" in both areas.

The newsroom I work in is better than most -- we do well covering the infrequent major weather stories here. I've put on a couple of weather seminars for reporters here, always well attended. I think better weather reporting is a great need in the media, because this is a subject that affects almost every person alive everyday.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

I agree ... better weather journalism is certainly a niche that has a great deal of room for improvement these days. Many chasers refuse to give interviews anymore because of the way written media tends to discombobulate everything that is said. Everyone in the world loves to talk about weather ... it's the first page I turn to in the paper ... but there are no articles there, only estimated high and low temps and a map of the country. We need more professionally-written copy by the people who know the ropes.

 

[Kevin Myatt]

Back before I did the weather column, when I was an editor in small-town Arkansas, I remember calling the Weather Service office working on stories about weather events. The minute the mets realized I could speak the language with them, at least moderately well, their entire tone of voice and approach to the interview changed. It was obvious they wanted to be able to talk more, but were skeptical of the media's ability to grasp what they were saying and relay that accurately. Once they knew I had some weather knowledge, they opened up more and I was able to get a better story. (I have great relations with the NWS office here, and the local TV mets -- they see my work as complementary to theirs.)

Weather has not been a subject assigned as a beat at most newspapers, and I don't quite know why.

 

[Ben Cotton]

Originally posted by Kevin Myatt
Weather has not been a subject assigned as a beat at most newspapers, and I don't quite know why.

I would venture to say that disinterest is the cause. I think most people don't particularly care about the weather that doesn't affect them, except for novelties like land-falling hurricanes and tornado outbreaks. The average newspaper reader is probably content with the forecast temperature extrema and POPs. That's part of the reason why you dont' see anything of great substance on TWC: the audience just doesn't care.

Now, it could be that that's just my cynical perception of things, and that perhaps the general public would be more interested in weather news if they were exposed to it. For all meteorologists know about weather, think of how little we know about people. Personally, I'd like to see a lot more research done in conjunction with sociologists to examine things like warning reactions, interest in weather beyond what has immediate effect, etc. I'm just too lazy to do any of it. ;-)


Ben

 

[Kevin Myatt]

There's more interest in weather than you think. I have been stunned by the response my column has received in the past two years. Weather Journal has a sizeable and very committed following that, according to the emails I've gotten, transcends intense hard-core weather people like us. I think it's more that it fills a niche that wasn't filled before than any glorious ability of mine. I'm just writing about what I love.

I think of weather enthusiasts on the Saffir-Simpson Scale. The Cat 3 and higher weather enthusiasts come to boards like this one and other technical sites. But beyond them, there's a sizeable crowd of Cat 1 and 2 weather enthusiasts who crave more than they're getting but aren't so inclined to dive into more technical stuff. Weather is interesting to them, but not their biggest interest. And then there's the tropical depression and tropical storm level weather interests who plug in when something big's going on. (In my area, snow events draw the biggest attention).

Everybody talks about weather ... you know the old saying. So someone's interested.

 

[Kevin Myatt]

Perhaps, considering the audience here, I should have rated weather enthusiasts on the Fujita scale instead.

 

[Edward Ballou]

Just taken from text of a tornado warning up in ND:

* AT 232 PM CDT...WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WITH STRONG ROTATION 7 MILES SOUTH OF PENN...OR 8 MILES WEST OF DEVILS LAKE...MOVING TO THE NORTHEAST AT 30 MPH.