BeauDodson Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Some have been waiting for this to occur http://products.weat..._IBW_011012.pdf WFO's in the test: top, eax, sgf, lsx and ict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Joplin as an example, neat... Having read through all of it now, sounds like a great idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxmeddler Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 When describing warnings to the public in the past it has always been black and white. A tornado warning means this, a severe thunderstorm warning means that. However, when put into practice the various kinds of threat that emerge are put into one category thus increasing the uncertainty of what will happen in the public eyes. I think this is a good shift in the thinking process. Instead of warnings being catagorical, this brings on a new way of describing what the threat will be. It may take longer to "make" the warnings and decide which tier the warning will be, but in the end I think the public will have a much better picture and understanding of what the threat is. My 2 cents FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I like how they've laid out the different wordage for each category of SVR/TOR. It will be interesting to see what happens with it this year and how the public reacts to the warning levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm8 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I'm still shocked at the number of people who don't know the difference between a watch and a warning. As nice as a tiered warning system sounds, I'm afraid that the majority of the general public won't ever notice a difference even if it was implemented nation wide. When people are watching TV and suddenly an warning alert interrupts their broadcast, most people will see either "thunderstorm" and do nothing or "tornado" and maybe go to shelter. The more severe wording probably won't even register for them. Remember, most people don't know what the "baseline criteria" is for a warning. So even if they actually read a warning that says 80 mph winds are possible, they won't have anything to compare it to and won't realize that it isn't just your "average" strong storm. That all being said, of course I certainly hope that I'm wrong and a tiered warning system really would make a difference. That's just not how I see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I threw this in the Lakes/Ohio Valley sub-forum before I saw this... We know there is an issue with the public taking the appropriate response to our warnings in many situations, and I love that this is an attempt to fix that. I do think that the science allows for the capacity to differentiate these respective threats. I do have some concern that these tiers might allow for some complacency when it comes to "baseline" threats. Our goal is to elicit immediate action when we issue a warning, and I could see the public taking the mentality that it is just a run of the mill SVR for instance. Theoretically it should cut down on the time it takes to issue a warning. Whereas in the past these threats would need to be hand typed into a warning, now there will be selectable additions via the Warngen GUI. Communication should be more effecitve, with those who need the information. The media members and EMs will now see which storms are the greatest threats quickly. I think effective communication with those partners will go a long way to addressing my concerns above. If the media and EM communities aren't glossing over the "baseline" threats, hopefully the public won't either. At the very least if we can maintain current reaction to baseline threats, and create a more widespread response to enhanced wording threats we will have accomplished something good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 When describing warnings to the public in the past it has always been black and white. A tornado warning means this, a severe thunderstorm warning means that. However, when put into practice the various kinds of threat that emerge are put into one category thus increasing the uncertainty of what will happen in the public eyes. I think this is a good shift in the thinking process. Instead of warnings being catagorical, this brings on a new way of describing what the threat will be. It may take longer to "make" the warnings and decide which tier the warning will be, but in the end I think the public will have a much better picture and understanding of what the threat is. My 2 cents FWIW. I addressed this a bit in my first post, but it may actually do the opposite. If there was an extreme threat in the past, it would have be hand written into the canned warning statement. Having a couple button clicks to automatically add it from the GUI might be able to reduce the warning making process a minute or so. Then again I haven't seen the GUI, so I don't know exactly how involved the creation process will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I'm still shocked at the number of people who don't know the difference between a watch and a warning. As nice as a tiered warning system sounds, I'm afraid that the majority of the general public won't ever notice a difference even if it was implemented nation wide. When people are watching TV and suddenly an warning alert interrupts their broadcast, most people will see either "thunderstorm" and do nothing or "tornado" and maybe go to shelter. The more severe wording probably won't even register for them. Remember, most people don't know what the "baseline criteria" is for a warning. So even if they actually read a warning that says 80 mph winds are possible, they won't have anything to compare it to and won't realize that it isn't just your "average" strong storm. That all being said, of course I certainly hope that I'm wrong and a tiered warning system really would make a difference. That's just not how I see it happening. Having the PDS wording in the warning makes me think some less weather-educated people are going to get confused between a PDS Watch and a PDS Warning. Honestly, the wording from LZK is probably some of the best I've seen for urgency when regarding a potential major tornado. From the Vilonia tornado last year: SEVERE WEATHER STATEMENTNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LITTLE ROCK AR 741 PM CDT MON APR 25 2011 ARC023-045-085-145-260100- /O.CON.KLZK.TO.W.0102.000000T0000Z-110426T0100Z/ LONOKE AR-FAULKNER AR-WHITE AR-CLEBURNE AR- 741 PM CDT MON APR 25 2011 ...A TORNADO WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR SOUTH CENTRAL CLEBURNE... SOUTHWESTERN WHITE...EAST CENTRAL FAULKNER AND EXTREME NORTHWESTERN LONOKE COUNTIES UNTIL 800 PM CDT... ...TORNADO EMERGENCY FOR ROMANCE... AT 738 PM CDT...STORM SPOTTERS AND NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE METEOROLOGISTS WERE TRACKING A CONFIRMED TORNADO WITH REPORTS OF DAMAGE. THIS POTENTIALLY DEADLY TORNADO WAS LOCATED 3 MILES SOUTHEAST OF MT VERNON...OR 16 MILES NORTH OF CABOT...MOVING NORTHEAST AT 50 MPH. * LOCATIONS IN OR NEAR THE PATH OF THIS TORNADO INCLUDE... SEARCY... VILONIA... ROSE BUD... MT VERNON... HIGGINSON... GRAVEL HILL... ENOLA... CROSBY... SIDON... ROMANCE... OTTO... LETONA... JOY... FLOYD... EL PASO... CENTER HILL... ARMSTRONG SPRINGS... ALBION... PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS... TO REPEAT...A VIOLENT...WEDGE TORNADO IS ON THE GROUND. THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY DANGEROUS SITUATION. THIS STORM IS PRODUCING A LIFE THREATENING...CONFIRMED TORNADO CAPABLE OF SIGNIFICANT DESTRUCTION! TAKE COVER IMMEDIATELY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Having the PDS wording in the warning makes me think some less weather-educated people are going to get confused between a PDS Watch and a PDS Warning. This is assuming people understand a PDS watch vs. a traditional watch in the first place. While there is obviously an effort to get the public to react properly when faced with a threat, I think these are also heavily geared towards decision makers and communicators. Media members will more accurately be able to convey which storms pose the greatest threat, and EMs will know how to react and where to divert resources. Which hopefully results in a trickle down effect to the general public as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 As long as good data can be gleened for a scientific review afterwards showing the added or lessened utility to the public/media, I'm all for this experiment. Also...a WFO should not get penalized for no tornado developing using the "TORNADO POSSIBLE" wording in an SVR, nor should it get credit for a hit. One concern off the top of my head is the first EF0/1 that injures or kills someone with no TOR issued. This tiered approach has the potential to be more confusing to an already confused public, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 As long as good data can be gleened for a scientific review afterwards showing the added or lessened utility to the public/media, I'm all for this experiment. Also...a WFO should not get penalized for no tornado developing using the "TORNADO POSSIBLE" wording in an SVR, nor should it get credit for a hit. One concern off the top of my head is the first EF0/1 that injures or kills someone with no TOR issued. This tiered approach has the potential to be more confusing to an already confused public, imo. I have similar concerns about the lower end of the spectrum threats. There are tornado deaths that occur with no TOR now, and there will still be deaths with no TOR with the expirement. I'm more concerned with the first death that occurs because someone decided that the lack of enhanced wording meant that no action was required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I have similar concerns about the lower end of the spectrum threats. There are tornado deaths that occur with no TOR now, and there will still be deaths with no TOR with the expirement. I'm more concerned with the first death that occurs because someone decided that the lack of enhanced wording meant that no action was required. True but not many. The current TOR POD is not as bad is could possibly be under the new system. By design, there will be more tornadoes without a warning associated with a tiered approach. There will be more cases of folks saying things like..."it came out of the blue...no warning whatsoever". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 True but not many. The current TOR POD is not as bad is could possibly be under the new system. By design, there will be more tornadoes without a warning associated with a tiered approach. There will be more cases of folks saying things like..."it came out of the blue...no warning whatsoever". I guess this is what is confusing me. Tornado warnings will cotinue to be issued as frequently as before, there will just be more room to step up the impacts. At least that's how I take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHweather Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 As long as good data can be gleened for a scientific review afterwards showing the added or lessened utility to the public/media, I'm all for this experiment. Also...a WFO should not get penalized for no tornado developing using the "TORNADO POSSIBLE" wording in an SVR, nor should it get credit for a hit. One concern off the top of my head is the first EF0/1 that injures or kills someone with no TOR issued. This tiered approach has the potential to be more confusing to an already confused public, imo. From what I gathered, but I may be wrong, it seems like the "TORNADO POSSIBLE" wording in an SVR will be used in situations where under the current, non-tiered system, the warning forecaster may add the "while not immediately likely, some rotation has been detected with this storm and a tornado may still form" line, and that the criteria for the "baseline" TOR will be the same as it would be for any TOR issuance with the current system. I do think it will be an interesting experiment and will sort of formalize the tornado emergancy wording that is used in the current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I guess this is what is confusing me. Tornado warnings will cotinue to be issued as frequently as before, there will just be more room to step up the impacts. At least that's how I take it. Yeah the plan is vague and it doesn't define what constitutes a low end or "possible" tor threat. I'm assuming they are talking about sheared, QLCS, or broken-line situations etc...where the potential is fairly high something somewhere may happen. But do you issue for the svr threat primarilly in those situations? What if there really isn't a svr threat? We take the ding on an SVR anyway? I'm glad they're doing this experienment and I'm hoping to see many best practices developed from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 From what I gathered, but I may be wrong, it seems like the "TORNADO POSSIBLE" wording in an SVR will be used in situations where under the current, non-tiered system, the warning forecaster may add the "while not immediately likely, some rotation has been detected with this storm and a tornado may still form" line, and that the criteria for the "baseline" TOR will be the same as it would be for any TOR issuance with the current system. I do think it will be an interesting experiment and will sort of formalize the tornado emergancy wording that is used in the current system. I agree. It will be beneficial to see this study done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yeah the plan is vague and it doesn't define what constitutes a low end or "possible" tor threat. I'm assuming they are talking about sheared, QLCS, or broken-line situations etc...where the potential is fairly high something somewhere may happen. But do you issue for the svr threat primarilly in those situations? What if there really isn't a svr threat? We take the ding on an SVR anyway? I'm glad they're doing this experienment and I'm hoping to see many best practices developed from it. I think the QLCS situations will be just as borderline as ever. It is difficult in most cases to catch those with long (or any) lead time TORs in the first place. I read it as similar to the situations where you add the "severe thunderstorms can produce tornadoes with little warning" precautionary/preparedness statement. If you are under a tornado watch or conditions are favorable for tornadoes, the "possible" wording would be an appropriate addition to a SVR. I'm also looking forward to seeing what does work well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think the QLCS situations will be just as borderline as ever. It is difficult in most cases to catch those with long (or any) lead time TORs in the first place. I read it as similar to the situations where you add the "severe thunderstorms can produce tornadoes with little warning" precautionary/preparedness statement. If you are under a tornado watch or conditions are favorable for tornadoes, the "possible" wording would be an appropriate addition to a SVR. I'm also looking forward to seeing what does work well. I guess I'm thinking of the cases where there is low top convection...no real severe threat, but a fairly high tor threat. Such as in tropical situations, high shear - low cape, tmb boundaries and the like. You dont feel good about a svr or a tor in these cases most of the time...but moreso you are leaning tor. So, an svr is issued to cover the tor potential? Just thinking aloud. Who knows how things will work, but there seems to be much grey in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weunice Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 As someone who has spent a lot of time in the last few years developing an algorithm to sort warnings based on criteria this is a welcome change for me mostly because it will aim to consistently provide data that is easy to algorihmically identify (sifting through hail verbiage is a total nightmare and about as inconsistent as you can imagine). When you have 20 severe thunderstorm warnings that you are sifting through you find out real quick that the vast majority are 60mph, 1 inch hail. Same with tornado warnings. Doppler radar indicates .... This will make it a lot easier to reliably find the exceptional warnings. Of course there is a real problem presented here as others have mentioned. I can see on the page I have written that the majority of storm warnings are not "exceptional" but that doesn't mean they are not dangerous. We don't want people paying attention only when there is monster hail, hurricane force winds and violent tornadoes on the ground. Here is an example of what I am talking about. (Jan 22 when the Rison, AR cell had a TORNADO EMERGENCY) ... Most tornado warnings look like the last one not the top two. Imagine warnings presented this way. There are pros and cons to it. I mean, which ones stand out to you beow? Does that make the one at the bottom not worth paying attention to? FWIW, the hail sizes with tornado warnings are unusual -- at least until recently. The first tornado warning line reads TORNADO EMERGENCY, TORNADO REPORTED, RADAR INDICATED, DAMAGING HAIL, GOLF BALL ... this is usually the result of the inital warning and a subsequent related severe weather statement triggering everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Marusak Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 this is going to be an interesting experiment to see how this will go for the stations my company gives warnings for. but looking at the example, it looks like it'll have me ad-libbing a bit more, but also having a clearer perspective on what i'm talking about. i wonder how the stations themselves will take the changes, and if they'll be doing their own coverage more (like some of them do), or maybe they'll have us go on live/tape more. it'll be an interesting summer for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master of Disaster Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Heading to the National Severe Storms Workshop in Norman the end of this month. Kind of curious to see if they mention this there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master of Disaster Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Anywho, looking at the agenda, it looks pretty cool. Quite a bit of stuff on Joplin. http://www.norman.no...ov/nsww/agenda/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Anyway...back on topic. If the NWS does in fact implement a tiered warning system in the future then they need to address how non-meso tors will be accounted for. Not only in a perceived non-detection, but in a potentially negative public impact angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master of Disaster Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Anyway...back on topic. If the NWS does in fact implement a tiered warning system in the future then they need to address how non-meso tors will be accounted for. Not only in a perceived non-detection, but in a potentially negative public impact angle. Just my opinion, but those book end type vortexes that show on velocity scans for one sweep and then are gone are almost impossible to account for. Perhaps include those as enhanced wording in STWs. I think most STWs mention tornadoes are possible anyway now dont they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Just my opinion, but those book end type vortexes that show on velocity scans for one sweep and then are gone are almost impossible to account for. Perhaps include those as enhanced wording in STWs. I'm talking about the longer lived non-meso tors which I described earlier. I'm not sure what an STW is...but if you mean the proposed tor-enhanced SVR then yeah that's the current plan. SVRs are generally given less heed by the public already and I doubt the average joe will be able to grasp a new tor concept contained within the possible new SVRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master of Disaster Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I'm talking about the longer lived non-meso tors which I described earlier. I'm not sure what an STW is...but if you mean the proposed tor-enhanced SVR then yeah that's the current plan. SVRs are generally given less heed by the public already and I doubt the average joe will be able to grasp a new tor concept contained within the possible new SVRs. Well, I think you have a good point. But where do we stop with having to describe every single threat possible or holding the general public's hand over every threat they face. Its a tornado. It may be bad. That doesn't mean it WILL be bad at your house. It just means it could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Well, I think you have a good point. But where do we stop with having to describe every single threat possible or holding the general public's hand over every threat they face. Its a tornado. It may be bad. That doesn't mean it WILL be bad at your house. It just means it could. Well that's true. We've seen many cases where a "low-end" tor does damage, injures and kills people in our CWFA. Mainly because we get a lot of those types tors. Tors that are non-classical and are challenging to identify and warn for to begin with. It's only going to take a couple (or less) of these cases for a public outcry of..."where was the tornado warning?". And rightfully so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master of Disaster Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Well that's true. We've seen many cases where a "low-end" tor does damage, injures and kills people in our CWFA. Mainly because we get a lot of those types tors. Tors that are non-classical and are challenging to identify and warn for to begin with. It's only going to take a couple (or less) of these cases for a public outcry of..."where was the tornado warning?". And rightfully so. Our warning and alert system now has 238,000 devices on it and 130,000 accounts. We relay NWS warnings onto it after the warning has been vetted by a manager and released. Its one of the few system where the public can reply to the warning. Here are a few replies to a Winter Weather Advisory LWX sent out a week or so ago. I am trying to watch a movie and the dvd is not showing up on the tv how do I make that happen? Leaving soon from Diana happy hour Need to add dry ice to sidewalk /driveway tonight Bastad I guess the point I am trying to make is that most advisories, watches and warnings are taken as information and not for action among a majority of residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I guess the point I am trying to make is that most advisories, watches and warnings are taken as information and not for action among a majority of residents. I'd buy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I guess the point I am trying to make is that most advisories, watches and warnings are taken as information and not for action among a majority of residents. That's because you have to personalize the threat with enhanced wording. It's up to the residents to take appropriate action if they want to. For some people, nothing short of driving to their house, knocking on their door, and screaming at them with a megaphone will prompt them to take action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.