James Spann speaks to the media and the NWS concerning

[Ian]

...like 2/1998, 5/1999 or 2/2008 large, not like 4/27/11 large. Sure, 60 people still may die in violent outbreaks once every few years, but 330 is just not a number that "needs" to happen. Even if you disagree with every one of Spann's points (I don't think he's right on everything), there will be another set of identified shortcomings and recommendations upcoming in the NWS's own Service Assessment. I do think they are going to say something about both the weather radios and the standardization of tornado emergencies.

I don't disagree per se. The warning system doesn't work properly, that's clear. I'm not sure that the science is there to resolve all the issues tho. I also think the media is somewhat culpable in driving people to take risks as citizen reporters tho would not assume that causes a ton of extra deaths but who knows. Even if warnings improve... Put an ef4/5 through a city and lots of people will die.

[isohume]

Yeah I guess I wasn't clear.. I meant it would be nice to easily see that it is radar/spotter/etc up front rather than buried in the warning following a lot of standard text. The main way to get the public to listen is to scare them IMO. Maybe we need color coded tornado warnings. Green = grab your camera and stand in the driveway like a goon. Red = pray you aren't impaled by 4000 toothpicks before your skin is ripped off.

No...simpler is better. One unambiguous warning meaning the same thing each time. TAKE COVER.

[isohume]

"What more can you ask for?? NOAA radio, local TV, text alerts, sirens, Facebook with meteorologists not to mention some of the other services that you can sign up for for notification. Other than someone coming to your house & telling you in person there are numerous avenues of communication out there!!"

This is very true. I highly doubt anyone was totally unaware of what was going on. The warning system worked as it should have. No problems there.

It comes down to personal responsibility. For example...if I was somehow transferred to the Deep South and I couldn't quit or kill myself...job one would be to buy and install an underground storm shelter. That would be me taking personal responsibility given the potential deadly risks known to my new area.

[radarman]

This is very true. I highly doubt anyone was totally unaware of what was going on. The warning system worked as it should have. No problems there.

It comes down to personal responsibility. For example...if I was somehow transferred to the Deep South and I couldn't quit or kill myself...job one would be to buy and install an underground storm shelter. That would be me taking personal responsibility given the potential deadly risks known to my new area.

I hear you, but it's no coincidence that if you look at demographics for storm fatalities the poor are heavily over-represented.

[isohume]

I hear you, but it's no coincidence that if you look at demographics for storm fatalities the poor are heavily over-represented.

The poor are over-represented in the Deep South in general. But I hear ya...there probably needs to be community organization in providing adequate shelter for the disadvantaged.

[Ian]

At the end of the day - personal responsibility goes a long long way.

No doubt. I'm sure many of the deaths are people who did not take the proper precautions. Of course in some instances they simply could not or the usual warning of going to an interior room etc if no basement failed them due to the power of the storm.

But, there's still a "sky is falling" thing going on here. If you get 5 tornado warnings a year and none of them produce you are probably more likely to ignore the 6th and it could be the big one.

I'm close to an NWS apologist but at some point scientists have to get past the "well some people are dumb" line of thinking. The warnings work from a perspective of warning that there is a threat, but they don't work from a psychological perspective apparently. Maybe we need a team of social scientists to be hired by NOAA to address the problem since it seems the technological scientists can't think as logically about it as they should.

[isohume]

No doubt. I'm sure many of the deaths are people who did not take the proper precautions. Of course in some instances they simply could not or the usual warning of going to an interior room etc if no basement failed them due to the power of the storm.

But, there's still a "sky is falling" thing going on here. If you get 5 tornado warnings a year and none of them produce you are probably more likely to ignore the 6th and it could be the big one.

I'm close to an NWS apologist but at some point scientists have to get past the "well some people are dumb" line of thinking. The warnings work from a perspective of warning that there is a threat, but they don't work from a psychological perspective apparently. Maybe we need a team of social scientists to be hired by NOAA to address the problem since it seems the tech scientists can't think as logically about it as they should.

The potential message is already out there. As I stated earlier...we say "CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A TORNADO". We can't be much more clear than that. I think the general public is aware of the limitations in tornado warning science. I doubt they think..."oh a tornado warning, I better take cover now!"...I also doubt they think..."oh a tornado warning, no big deal". They are most likely in the middle when they hear a TOR has been issued for their area.

[radarman]

No doubt. I'm sure many of the deaths are people who did not take the proper precautions. Of course in some instances they simply could not or the usual warning of going to an interior room etc if no basement failed them due to the power of the storm.

But, there's still a "sky is falling" thing going on here. If you get 5 tornado warnings a year and none of them produce you are probably more likely to ignore the 6th and it could be the big one.

I'm close to an NWS apologist but at some point scientists have to get past the "well some people are dumb" line of thinking. The warnings work from a perspective of warning that there is a threat, but they don't work from a psychological perspective apparently. Maybe we need a team of social scientists to be hired by working with NOAA to address the problem since it seems the tech scientists can't think as logically about it as they should.

It's happening in many places... University of Virginia, University of Delaware, University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez, University of Colorado Colorado Springs

There is a difference though between understanding behavior actually changing it. And solutions they've proposed here and there generally go unfunded. But it's not just "tech guys" not thinking logically. The social scientists struggle with the same issues about warning fatigue, proper POD/FAR thresholds, lines of communication, etc.

[Ian]

It's happening in many places... University of Virginia, University of Delaware, University of Puerto Rico Mayaguez, University of Colorado Colorado Springs

There is a difference though between understanding behavior actually changing it. And solutions they've proposed here and there generally go unfunded. But it's not just "tech guys" not thinking logically. The social scientists struggle with the same issues about warning fatigue, proper POD/FAR thresholds, lines of communication, etc.

Good to know. I'm not trying to single out technical scientists as outside the realm of being able to deal with the issue, but just read an AFD and you see some of these guys are not the best communicators/users of the English language ever even though many of them are brilliant.

I don't think the answer is easy... but it is troubling to see some folks say there is no problem IMO.

[isohume]

Good to know. I'm not trying to single out technical scientists as outside the realm of being able to deal with the issue, but just read an AFD and you see these guys are not the best communicators/users of the English language ever even though many of them are brilliant.

I don't think the answer is easy... but it is troubling to see some folks say there is no problem IMO.

Haha...thanks for the early morning laugh. The AFD is not supposed to be written in essay style and it's intended audience is not the general public for casual reading purposes. The AFD is meant to convey quickly a forecasters thoughts to coordinating offices and the media what they are thinking about the models, the forecast and weather patterns, etc.

[Ian]

Haha...thanks for the early morning laugh. The AFD is not supposed to be written in essay style and it's intended audience is not the general public for casual reading purposes. The AFD is meant to convey quickly a forecasters thoughts to coordinating offices and the media what they are thinking about the models, the forecast and weather patterns, etc.

It was just an example. I know plenty of scientists in other fields who seem to think they are the best at everything because they took a lot of math classes or whatnot. There is nothin wrong with stating a trained communicator is better at communicating or a psychologist understands the way the mind works better than a weatherman.

[isohume]

It was just an example. I know plenty of scientists in other fields who seem to think they are the best at everything because they took a lot of math classes or whatnot. There is nothin wrong with stating a trained communicator is better at communicating or a psychologist understands the way the mind works better than a weatherman.

[Ian]

i like that you took my joke and put it in your sig... it was an obvious play on the terror alert system....

[isohume]

i like that you took my joke and put it in your sig... it was an obvious play on the terror alert system....

[isohume]

Sometimes I think (although I realize it isn't true) the NWS has the easy job - but those who are out in front of the public and have to convey the NWS message are the ones that are in the frying pan.

The TV mets certainly have a very tough job and I do not envy them one bit when it comes to communicating something as chaotic as weather to the public. I could never do it and I duly respect all of you that can and do.

[radarman]

I have, during the past week, had people tell me (concerning tornado warnings in Paducah) "See - I told you nothing would happen - nothing ever happens here because of the river"

It's like when people always say tornadoes can't hit Norman, OK. May 10th last year woke some people up, but it was mostly east Norman that got hit... The feeling is still pervasive. Maybe it's superstition, or an old wives tale? Or the klingon tornado shield they've installed?

How do we educate people to understand and grasp the nature of severe weather being isolated?

I guess you have to just consistently repeat it. Explicitly differentiate between "potential" and "confirmed" danger while on air or in discussions.

Explain the same sort of things you're describing now. It's hard when they weather broadcast gets 60-90 seconds at a time, but eventually the public will become bored by the consistent mention of how "this doesn't necessarily mean YOUR house will blow over". That's a sign it's sinking in.

Mainly because we don't want to scare people - we want them to be aware of the situation. But when there is a high risk day and everyone and their brother is talking about the potential for large tornadoes - it is hard not to scare the public. Especially after the series of events that have struck the nation over the last few months.

We nearly had a full blown panic in our region at the end of May. Numerous schools and businesses closed down during the late morning and early afternoon hours - of the high risk day. Rumors spread that another Tri-State Tornado event was imminent. This word spread through county officials - it was a big mess.

I was talking about this yesterday in the New England severe thread. Amherst got a reverse 911 call about a tornado one town to the north moving toward us. There was quite literally people running in the halls calling home telling them to take cover. (no TOR was issued and rightly so)

The interesting thing was, there was absolutely NOT a tornado. A little microburst took out a couple trees and power lines and somehow we get "tornado on the ground confirmed by spotters". This is directly attributable to last week. Granted we don't have tornadoes around here generally, so people think the world is coming to end all of a sudden.

But you're right it's a fine line between warning fatigue and whipping people into a frenzy, and there's a lot of geographical influence to that.

[isohume]

Simpler IS better when it comes to the public.

Social science is the ticket

I agree with the above. Warnings and such need to be simple and unambiguous. Social science can and does drive how we word our messages to the media and public. It's the reason we write what we do and it will evolve as time goes on and new ways of communicating are discovered.

This being said, the public will react in a subjective manner to what they are being told. For instance...if one person hears a PoP of 30% they may take an umbrella to work or reschedule and outdoor activity. Meanwhile, their next door neighbor may only take these same measures when they hear a PoP of 40%. It all depends on someone's individual experience as to how they are going to react to a given message.

[The Dude]

No...simpler is better. One unambiguous warning meaning the same thing each time. TAKE COVER.

But what happens if we find out people aren't heeding that advice? While I agree with you that it's ultimately the responsibility of the people to watch out for themselves, I do think we should explore how to provide them with additional information to make smart decisions. The more I think about, the more I think it makes sense to keep the Tornado Warning headline as is, but start using Tornado Emergency as a headline for especially dangerous confirmed tornadoes.

[Ian]

Bingo

And this is a discussion that continues at many NWS Offices - read the Super Tuesday Service Assessment and you will see that you are not alone in this thought process. James Spann also understands this concept.

Meteorologists and those who are responsible to conveying the message have got to figure out a better way to warn people - to educate people - to teach people what is going on - what their response should be - what the threat to their family is going to be.

People don't care if a snow advisory has been issued vs a winter storm warning. They simply want to know what it means to them - how is it going to impact them.

I hear this all the time - I write my blog in layman terms as much as possible. Yes - occasionally I will drift off and use words like CAPE and shear - but I also try to give people the definition of those words - or at least inform them what it means to them.

Simpler IS better when it comes to the public. They don't care about the science (sure - some care - but most do not). They just want to know how it is going to impact them.

Social science is the ticket - if we want to save lives then we have to better understand the public's perception of what we are trying to tell them. It does not matter what WE think - it matters what THEY think. If our job is to help make them safe then we better figure out how to communicate our message.

I guess I'm surprised with the reactions I get here sometimes.. maybe because I work in a place where telling someone they are not TOTALLY right is a good thing as it ultimately leads everyone toward better ideas.

I can say I have not looked into how much NOAA is pulling in social scientists/communicators to better their outreach/warnings/etc. I was just stating that in addition to all the wonderful things they already do, there are some they could do better.

The actual process of warning is done just fine IMO. To me, the issue could be as small as shifting/replacing a word in the text/audio, or making it more concise etc. I havent listened to a weather radio in years to be honest, but the text itself (which really is a public product as are AFDs these days) is long and some the meat comes late.

The study should be along the lines of how long people actually listen to a warning after the tone... do they drift off 5 seconds in and not really take in what they should? Same with text. A person here knows exactly where to hit in the text to see what they are looking for (in addition to knowing how to read a radar etc)... so it's not necessarily going to be the place we find a lot of answers.

The NWS is perhaps one of the most critical and well functioning gov agencies we have. Considering how inept our gov is on the whole it's amazing the jobs these guys do. It's rather sterile though, at least in its public face. Sure that's shifting as everyone goes into new media etc.. but you still get the sense they are going to lag a lot.

I dunno if they have it easier than the media guys. Gotta remember when something busts the media guys can (and often do -- at least around here) say "well, I thought it would not be stormy but the SPC put out a watch so I had to report it". Plus the public guys have all sorts of screaming fans.

[isohume]

But what happens if we find out people aren't heeding that advice? While I agree with you that it's ultimately the responsibility of the people to watch out for themselves, I do think we should explore how to provide them with additional information to make smart decisions. The more I think about, the more I think it makes sense to keep the Tornado Warning headline as is, but start using Tornado Emergency as a headline for especially dangerous confirmed tornadoes.

Some people are always going to not heed warnings. There is no way around that. There is no one shoe fits all message that is going to get everyone to respond the same. People are just too different and they'll react differently about what they see and hear. It's the same phenomenon of people riding out hurricanes along the coast. Probably not a great idea and warned against...but folks will still do it.

[Fred Gossage]

But what happens if we find out people aren't heeding that advice? While I agree with you that it's ultimately the responsibility of the people to watch out for themselves, I do think we should explore how to provide them with additional information to make smart decisions. The more I think about, the more I think it makes sense to keep the Tornado Warning headline as is, but start using Tornado Emergency as a headline for especially dangerous confirmed tornadoes.

The folks that we are trying to get to act on the warnings would then use that as an excuse to ignore the regular tornado warnings. Most of the people that don't take any action during a tornado warning do it by choice, because they don't believe they are immediately threatened so much that their life is in danger. The problem with that is, those people are going to be the ones that mentally look for excuses to not need to take action, because it will inconvenience them in their normal routines. Most of the people that just simply don't understand the process... usually take action once it's explained that they are under an imminent, serious threat... especially in the more dangerous supercell tornado situations. The folks that don't fall into either category are the ones that already understand the warning system and their need to take action... enough to do the right thing consistently each time. Our main problem here... is the fact that the ones we need to drive home this information to the most, are probably the ones that aren't going to change their actions, absolutely no matter what we do. You'd be surprised at the people down here that have the "if it's my time, it's my time... no sense in taking cover" mentality, even after April 27th and Joplin.

[radarman]

Many people don't have internet access at work, and have cell phones turned off.

I know that the events of last week were highly anomalous, but nobody in MA has a NOAA wx radio, and they certainly aren't going to not go to work based on thunderstorm potential, so how exactly should they be warned? Sirens really seem like the only way, unless we want to govt. fund a few million radios.

[Ian]

Many people don't have internet access at work, and have cell phones turned off.

I know that the events of last week were highly anomalous, but nobody in MA has a NOAA wx radio, and they certainly aren't going to not go to work based on thunderstorm potential, so how exactly should they be warned? Sirens really seem like the only way, unless we want to govt. fund a few million radios.

People will always die in bad weather... the death toll up there was not that high considering.

Using all resources for a warning is probably the best policy for now, perhaps refining some like the sirens. But still, you run into issues.. power outages, etc. Mike Smith and I'm sure others have noted that many of the highest fatality areas in Alabama had been without power most of the day before the tornadic storms got there.

On a side note: I don't know anyone who has their cell phone turned off during the day.

[The Dude]

How do we educate people to understand and grasp the nature of severe weather being isolated? Sure - there are occasionally the Tuscaloosa and Joplin, Missouri type events. We see them plastered on our television screen for days on end. But those images are not the norm. The norm would be an EF0 or EF1 tornado that is on the ground a few minutes - at best.

That may be the most difficult job in meteorology. On this--a board of weather enthusiasts--we constantly posters who appear to have no real understanding of the probabilistic element of a forecast and the isolated nature of severe weather.

I think terms like "high risk," "moderate risk," or "slight risk" do more to confuse the general public. When I tell non-weather weenie friends that there is a "slight risk" of severe storms, they assume that means there is a small risk than usual. Conversely, when we have a high risk or a moderate risk, people tend to see the risk as overstated if they don't see severe weather in their backyard. While, I realize these terms are not intended to be relayed directly to the broad public like watches and warnings, they seem to be used increasingly by broadcast mets.

When a severe outbreak is expected, I think the only real useful information that the general public needs to know is that there is a higher than normal risk of dangerous severe weather on that day, and that they need to pay close attention throughout the day to storm-specific warnings issued by the NWS.

[The Dude]

Social science is the ticket - if we want to save lives then we have to better understand the public's perception of what we are trying to tell them. It does not matter what WE think - it matters what THEY think. If our job is to help make them safe then we better figure out how to communicate our message.

BINGO!

The attitude that no change is needed because people should understand what we are telling them is a frustrating one.

As a lawyer, it's my job to figure out how to explain complex arguments to a client, a judge, or a jury. If they don't understand my argument, I don't say, "well they should have figured it out; it was clear to me." Instead, I have to figure out what wasn't getting through and find different ways to communicate that information.

If we find out the public isn't properly reacting to the information they are receiving, the response can't be to maintain the status quo in the hopes that the public will figure it out eventually. As you said so perfectly, the answer is to figure out why they react the way they do and making changes in the communication strategy to address that.

[radarman]

Also from Chis Novy out in Oklahoma

Norman, OK had a surprise weak nighttime tornado a couple of years ago that rattled its citizens. The sirens weren't sounded because nobody was at the EOC at the time. Through some magic, however, the EM convinced the citizens to pass a bond issue to purchase approximately 70 additional sirens. So the sirens weren't sounded because there was nobody there to sound them and the solution was to add a bunch of new sirens. Crazy!

Economics is obviously important in addressing the issues everyone has pointed out. The personnel costs of running 24 hour EM shifts are unbearable.

The only solution to this is a kick-ass tornado detection algorithm that feeds directly to the sirens. Let it man the night shift. Err on the side of low FAR.

This absolutely could be accomplished if union officials gave their blessing.

[isohume]

I think terms like "high risk," "moderate risk," or "slight risk" do more to confuse the general public. When I tell non-weather weenie friends that there is a "slight risk" of severe storms, they assume that means there is a small risk than usual. Conversely, when we have a high risk or a moderate risk, people tend to see the risk as overstated if they don't see severe weather in their backyard. While, I realize these terms are not intended to be relayed directly to the broad public like watches and warnings, they seem to be used increasingly by broadcast mets.

Agree wholeheartedly. There is no good reason for the media to showcase the outlooks and such from SPC. Just because specific information is out there doesn't mean the public wants to see it...let alone should try and understand it. I cringe every time I see an outlook publicized.

[isohume]

If we find out the public isn't properly reacting to the information they are receiving, the response can't be to maintain the status quo in the hopes that the public will figure it out eventually. As you said so perfectly, the answer is to figure out why they react the way they do and making changes in the communication strategy to address that.

I haven't seen anyone here say we should maintain the status quo wrt to warning messages. But like I already said, not everyone is going to react how we want them too. There is no easy fix or change. The NWS messages will continue to evolve based on the latest findings from social science studies, just like they always have.

[VAwxman]

There are no easy solutions since the science just isn't good enough yet to get us to an acceptable false alarm ratio. Fact is, that is why a lot of folks ignore the warnings, or maybe not ignore, but don't do everything they should to protect themselves. It is human nature. There are still some things we can do (the use of the polygon system rather than warning the whole county was a good one) to better communicate and hopefully save lives, but until the science improves enough to better pin down when there is an actual tornado, you just aren't going to get some people to take it seriously.

[The Dude]

Some people are always going to not heed warnings. There is no way around that. There is no one shoe fits all message that is going to get everyone to respond the same. People are just too different and they'll react differently about what they see and hear. It's the same phenomenon of people riding out hurricanes along the coast. Probably not a great idea and warned against...but folks will still do it.

I agree that no matter what you do, you will have some people who will ignore even the most dire of warnings, but I think your example illustrates the problem with the current approach to tornadoes.

For hurricanes we obviously have much greater lead-time and an ability to more accurately predict the severity. You can tell someone that a Cat-5 hurricane is on the way, with winds of 160 miles per hour and a 30-foot storm surge. If they still decide to stay, that's their problem. They have an accurate understanding of what is coming, and made their choice accordingly. While "Hurricane Warning" is used to cover everything from a strengthening tropical storm to a Cat-5 monster, the lead time of the warnings allows the public to learn where in that range the storm is expected to be, and to plan accordingly. Thus, a person under a Hurricane Warning for a glancing blow from a Cat 1 may understandably decide to stay put for that storm, while deciding to evacuate for a direct hit from a Cat4.

With our current approach to tornadoes, the Tornado Warning can mean anything from a torando may develop to there's a mile-wide EF-5 heading straight towards you. Because of the rapidly evolving nature of tornadoes, there isn't sufficient time to expect the public to digest the nuances of the text statement. Many times the only information they will get is a tornado siren, or a box in the corner of their TV indicating that their county is under a tornado warning. While we certainly hope everyone would assume the worst, that is an unrealistic view of human nature. The blanket term "Tornado Warning" simply conveys too wide a range of expected weather to be as useful as we need it to be.