Weather Service makes changes on tornado warnings

[SteveCarter]

They SHOULD change the way they issue tornado warnings, but not for every rotating t-storm. Just what we need - MORE false warnings. Soon a tornado warning will be as meaningful as an orange terrorist alert. There has been discussion of issuing tornado warnings by "sectors", instead of counties. Good idea? Absolutely. Especially in counties that are very large. Counties would be divided into sectors, and THAT sector would be under a warning, instead of falsely alerting an entire area. THIS way, warnings would be dramatically cut down for any one spot, and if a warning WAS issued for your sector, then you could at least count on getting SOMETHING to monitor. Issuing a tornado warning for a rotating storm is ridiculous. How many rotating storms never produce a tornado? The NWS has taken a lot of heat lately, and some of it justified, some is not. Let's hope this "sector" thing pans out.

 

[rdale]

"Issuing a tornado warning for a rotating storm is ridiculous. How many rotating storms never produce a tornado? "

Do not worry - as was made clear in this thread, the reporter / EMA director do not know what they are talking about.

 

[SteveCarter]

Do not worry - as was made clear in this thread, the reporter / EMA director do not know what they are talking about.[/quote]


Look at one of the other posts...about issuing a tornado warning because a storm showed rotation. It's ALREADY being done. The EMA director is simply stating what is ALREADY taking place. The more these rotating storms are classified as "probable" tornado producers, and ultimately go tornado warned, the more people will ignore the REAL threats.

 

[John MacKay]

More than not, issuing them on strong rotation is hit or miss, but I remember seeing a view on the local news after the event from a skytracker camera on top of this local station's building and saw some rotation on the western edge of the storm just as the tornado warning was issued. The event that occurred 30 minutes later was what is commonly called in chasing circles as the Mulvane tornado.

I remember looking at that storm for 30 minutes (in the middle of that, I was in the middle of Mulvane, then went back the direction I came in) before it did shot the first tornado down. It looked ominous all of that time, but didn't do anything until it hit an atmosphere to its east allowing for lower LCLs and more shear.

Now, this usually doesn't happen when a storm is warned for rotation, but days like this one you would take it seriously.

Now, I have started seeing the flip side where it takes more than a funnel just dangling for 15 seconds (and this one depended on its history). Two weeks ago, a previously tornado-warned (which at least produced funnels, and maybe a tornado) storm parked about 15 miles north of Wichita and kept developing new rotations as the storm constantly developed over the same area. After the last tornado warning expired (there were two in succession), there were spotters from a reputable radio station as well as spotters reporting a wall cloud and occasionally a funnel. Nothing warned, but it would have been a false warning as nothing touched down. Another funnel was reported with a storm two days later, but nothing happened tornado wise on that one either.

The ICT NWS usually doesn't issue a warning anymore unless there is a rotating wall cloud, a funnel cloud, a tornado reported, or tight and rapid rotation on radar/hook echo. They are pretty good at nailing when a tornado warning should be issued and when to lay off on one, so I won't question their method.

 

[rdale]

"The EMA director is simply stating what is ALREADY taking place."

Again - the EMA director and the article are WRONG. They do not issue a TOR warning for every rotating thunderstorm. If that thunderstorm has a STRONG rotation, and the environment is one where a tornado is likely, they issue. That's a very limited subset of rotating storms.

"The more these rotating storms are classified as "probable" tornado producers, and ultimately go tornado warned, the more people will ignore the REAL threats."

Sounds like you are advocating waiting for the touchdown to be phoned in before issuing a warning? Bad idea... Might as well give AccuWeather the NEXRAD sites because NWS won't be using them ;>

 

[SteveCarter]

Sounds like you are advocating waiting for the touchdown to be phoned in before issuing a warning? Bad idea... Might as well give AccuWeather the NEXRAD sites because NWS won't be using them (QUOTE)


Not at all. What I'm saying is......you can NOT issue a tornado warning for every rotating storm. If you do that, then people will simply ignore the warnings after a few tornado-warned rotating storms spin right through without ever producing so much as a funnel cloud. That's why we need reliable spotters, and a different approach. Like I advocated in an earlier post....we need to change the county warning system to a "sector" warning system. At least when a warning is issued, a MUCH smaller area will be affected, therefore.....reducing the number of people who would be warned for "nothing". Also, instead of issuing a WARNING, why not issue a "tornado alert" for an approaching rotating storm? That would fall into the category between watch and warning. *******Two scenarios...I hear on the radio that a tornado alert has been issued for sector 3 of Oconee county, SC (where I live), I would KNOW that something could happen here, and with a smaller area warned, it would be a pretty sure bet that a decent storm WOULD affect our area. Because of THAT, I would pay attention next time. SCENE II....A tornado warning is issued for our county. 45 miles to the North, they get a decent storm, but no tubes, and sunny skies here the entire time. What happens the next time? I ignore the warnings altogether. These are hypothetical situations, but very likely. The difference is that I, myself, would always pay attention, because I would be chasing. I'm actually trying to get the attention of someone who would at least listen to my ideas. The sector thing, and the alert thing, imo, could eventually save lives.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

we need to change the county warning system to a "sector" warning system. At least when a warning is issued, a MUCH smaller area will be affected, therefore.....reducing the number of people who would be warned for "nothing".

Thankfully, the NWS is testing the polygon warning system this year (perhaps it's been used in-house in previous years, but I'm not sure -- I've heard that the NWS used polygons for several years, just that the mets drew them in the shape of the county affected). I think a lot of the warning issue is based on statistics and verification. Right or wrong, the folks who issues warnings are going to get in much deeper trouble if they miss an event than if they overwarn an event. I'd imagine that the politics game comes into play with "warning lead times" as well. The fact of the matter is that people get up in arms if a non-warned storm produces tornadic damage, and the next thing ya know, there are politicians knocking on the doors of the NWS (and some private firms, I'm sure, throwing money at the politicians, claiming that they can do it better LOL).

False alarms are an important aspect when warning, but I think that figure is much less important (politically) than the probability of detection. In the ideal world, this wouldn't be the case; in the real world, with politics and budgetary issues, it is.

 

[rdale]

"What I'm saying is......you can NOT issue a tornado warning for every rotating storm."

I understand that - NWS understands that - everyone in the weather business understands that ;> No meteorological representative ever said anyone issues a warning for every rotating thunderstorm. Someone who has no involvement in the field said something to a reporter with no idea of the warning process and it made it into print. Don't believe everything you read...