James Spann speaks to the media and the NWS concerning

[HM]

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.

i cringe as well. That type of information is for the meteorologists, not the viewing audience of some local news station. I see that happen a lot up here in the NE corridor.

[The Dude]

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.

Amen. I don't envy the SPC or the rest of the NWS because it has so many audiences, often with conflicting needs.

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.

I absolutely agree that there is no easy fix, and the NWS has historically done a great job refining its approach to save more lives, such as:

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,

The switch to polygons was a tremendously useful idea. Unfortunately, I still see TV media simply highlighting entire counties to depict a polygon warning within it, but hopefully we'll see less and less of that in the future.

[isohume]

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.

Yeah, probably not the best analogy. I guess I was saying that even tho folks know what's up or to be expected...they will still do the wrong thing.

[Ian]

i cringe as well. That type of information is for the meteorologists, not the viewing audience of some local news station. I see that happen a lot up here in the NE corridor.

I think we increasingly need to look at the public a little differently as blogs/facebook/etc (which in many ways emulate early discussion boards) educate the masses to a far greater level than a 3 minute spot in the past could. There are plenty of layfolks in this area, for instance, that know the difference between those terms. These things are well known in the public domain now.. there is no putting it back in the box.

[AtticaFanatica]

I think I've posted this before, but on the subject of warnings and civilian response, the AMS now has a peer-reviewed journal for this type of stuff, so it's getting more play in the research community as well.

Weather, Climate, and Society

Weather, Climate, and Society, a quarterly journal of the American Meteorological Society, publishes scientific research and analysis on the interactions of weather and climate with society. The journal encompasses economic, policy, institutional, social, behavioral, and international research, including mitigation and adaptation to weather and climate change. Articles may focus on a broad range of topics at the interface of weather and/or climate and society, including the socioeconomic, policy, or technological influences on weather and climate, the socioeconomic or cultural impacts of weather and climate, ethics and equity issues associated with weather, climate, and society, and the historical and cultural contexts of weather, climate, and society. Because of the interdisciplinary subject matter, articles that involve both natural/physical scientists and social scientists are particularly encouraged.

[isohume]

I think we increasingly need to look at the public a little differently as blogs/facebook/etc (which in many ways emulate early discussion boards) educate the masses to a far greater level than a 3 minute spot in the past could. There are plenty of layfolks in this area, for instance, that know the difference between those terms. These things are well known in the public domain now.. there is no putting it back in the box.

Why not? Believe it or not...most people don't care about weather science or probability schemes. They want to know if it's going to rain.

[JoMo]

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.

That's interesting because I posted that in the Joplin tornado thread and what I think the NWS assessment will find:

[The Dude]

Yeah, probably not the best analogy. I guess I was saying that even tho folks know what's up or to be expected...they will still do the wrong thing.

Well, as they say, "you can't fix stupid." I think the question we just need to figure out is how to ensure folks know what's to be expected. I've got no problem with people dying due to stupidity--evolution's gotta start somewhere. I just don't want them to die from lack of information.

[Ian]

Why not? Believe it or not...most people don't care about weather science or probability schemes. They want to know if it's going to rain.

I disagree... but maybe because I'm part of a blog that started with a handful of viewers and now has multiple millions + the fact that most media organizations are following that line of sharing weather info. We pander a bit, but we're also pretty technical on the whole. Everyone loves the weather to some degree--many want to know the ins and outs a lot more than you'd expect.

[HM]

I think we increasingly need to look at the public a little differently as blogs/facebook/etc (which in many ways emulate early discussion boards) educate the masses to a far greater level than a 3 minute spot in the past could. There are plenty of layfolks in this area, for instance, that know the difference between those terms. These things are well known in the public domain now.. there is no putting it back in the box.

True and I do see what you mean, but I think the PWO issuance, when conditions warrant, is still a good feature to non-enthusiasts and news audiences. A lot of my clients cannot even understand watch vs. warning, so I certainly stay away from convective outlooks. In fact, i was just posting about this yesterday how it is comical that there are even mets out there who don't understand the difference between probabilistic and deterministic and what it means to be in a level of risk. They give themselves away quickly when they say things like, "SPC busted."

[isohume]

I disagree... but maybe because I'm part of a blog that started with a handful of viewers and now has multiple millions + the fact that most media organizations are following that line of sharing weather info. We pander a bit, but we're also pretty technical on the whole. Everyone loves the weather to some degree--many want to know the ins and outs a lot more than you'd expect.

So you think telling the public there is a 15% probability for significant event occurring within 25 miles of their location is good info to share? If I were the average Joe I'd probably take this to mean there is very little chance of a tstms even being in my area during the day.

[Ian]

True and I do see what you mean, but I think the PWO issuance, when conditions warrant, is still a good feature to non-enthusiasts and news audiences. A lot of my clients cannot even understand watch vs. warning, so I certainly stay away from convective outlooks. In fact, i was just posting about this yesterday how it is comical that there are even mets out there who don't understand the difference between probabilistic and deterministic and what it means to be in a level of risk. They give themselves away quickly when they say things like, "SPC busted."

I agree it's not an optimal situation when it comes to a lot of folks understanding it... but we can't do much more than try to educate at this pt. I really don't get how people can't tell the difference between watch and warning though... I've been surprised with some of the people I've heard admit that.

[Ian]

So you think telling the public there is a 15% probability for significant event occurring within 25 miles of their location is good info to share? If I were the average Joe I'd probably take this to mean there is very little chance of a tstms even being in my area during the day.

I dunno, perhaps not. If you can also explain how rare it is for truly severe weather to impact one specific location plus the fact that there is a scaled level of "concern" in SPC forecasts, then I guess it's not a big deal. A TV met cannot spend the time on air to explain these things.. bloggers/etc can. People are quite receptive to learning on the whole I think.

[isohume]

True and I do see what you mean, but I think the PWO issuance, when conditions warrant, is still a good feature to non-enthusiasts and news audiences. A lot of my clients cannot even understand watch vs. warning, so I certainly stay away from convective outlooks. In fact, i was just posting about this yesterday how it is comical that there are even mets out there who don't understand the difference between probabilistic and deterministic and what it means to be in a level of risk. They give themselves away quickly when they say things like, "SPC busted."

I've run into this a lot too. Not just with non-weather folks either. I've see weather weenies on this and other boards not being able to comprehend the word "potential". I'm not sure what can be done about that, but introducing more advanced concepts to the public surely can't be the way to go.

[The Dude]

I've run into this a lot too. Not just with non-weather folks either. I've see weather weenies on this and other boards not being able to comprehend the word "potential". I'm not sure what can be done about that,

One way is to get away from the ludicrous practice of providing forecasts to the exact temperature. It causes the public to overestimate mets' ability to forecast with precision, and I can't imagine it makes a lick of difference to a person if the forecast says 88 or simply upper 80s. I fear this bleeds over into precip forecasts as well.

[isohume]

One way is to get away from the ludicrous practice of providing forecasts to the exact temperature. It causes the public to overestimate mets' ability to forecast with precision, and I can't imagine it makes a lick of difference to a person if the forecast says 88 or simply upper 80s. I fear this bleeds over into precip forecasts as well.

One way for what?

I doubt most folks take a temp forecast of 88 to mean the temp will always hit 88. From their past experience of seeing a range of outcomes...they probably take a fcst of 88 to mean upper 80s or near 90.

[BadgerWXman]

Totally agree about TV mets not needing to show every freaking NWS product that is put out... it's a HUGE pet peeve of mine. Of course, when I first started I would show them, but then one day I realized the public generally doesn't care about them and my responsibility is to INFORM THE PUBLIC WHAT'S GOING ON AND/OR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.. not inform them of what the weather service thinks will happen. That's not to say I'm not usually in agreement with them, but it just becomes a big huge cluster**** when your DMA is between 3 or 4 offices that seemingly never communicate and slightly different watches/warnings are coming out at different times etc... at some point you just have to decide "alright, I'm just gonna tell these people where and when and how much it's going to snow/rain etc."

Now obviously, I communicate severe/tornado/flash flood warnings and usually the watches as well but EVEN in those situations sometimes I've gotten to a point where I've literally said out loud on the air during a severe outbreak "you know what, forget about the warnings, here's the radar, here's where the rotations are, and here's where they're headed." This isn't anything against the NWS at all... it's just that the way things are set up, warnings are out for a set time... sometimes they're expired early or chopped off from the back, but that doesn't happen all that often.

Say you have 4 horizontally adjacent counties tornado warned for a storm moving west to east. Most of the time, when the storm reaches county #3, counties 1 and 2 are still included in the warning even though the danger is long gone. If I show the warning and list the counties included, there will be 2 counties in no danger that are being told they are under a tornado warning. Like I said, this is nothing against NWS because they do a phenomenal job in general with these situations and have even improved the process recently with polygonal warnings. I don't expect them to be able to chop regions off warnings every 5-10 minutes because I'm sure they're plenty busy running around scrambling to get other important stuff done.. but it's my responsibility to tell viewers what's going on.. so if I can more effectively do that without showing a map of warning polygons that's what I'll do.

[isohume]

Now obviously, I communicate severe/tornado/flash flood warnings and usually the watches as well but EVEN in those situations sometimes I've gotten to a point where I've literally said out loud on the air during a severe outbreak "you know what, forget about the warnings, here's the radar, here's where the rotations are, and here's where they're headed." This isn't anything against the NWS at all... it's just that the way things are set up, warnings are out for a set time... sometimes they're expired early or chopped off from the back, but that doesn't happen all that often.

Yeah, that helps. Don't get me wrong, I know where you are coming from and why you are saying things like that. But it doesn't help to keep future and current warnings to be taken seriously. My only suggestion would be to not emphasize the warning itself, but the storm or storm environment.

[isohume]

Agree

We have one local station that will not use POP's. I don't blame them

They will use terminology such as scattered - numerous - widespread

I hate POP's - but that is just me.

We use coverage terms in the near/short range and probability terms in the extended range. This has worked well for us and I think it's understood well by our customers.

[BadgerWXman]

Yeah, that helps. Don't get me wrong, I know where you are coming from and why you are saying things like that. But it doesn't help to keep future and current warnings to be taken seriously. My only suggestion would be to not emphasize the warning itself, but the storm or storm environment.

Yeah and it's not really even saying it in a tone that's patronizing NWS or anything... it's more of a "alright there's a lot going on, I don't want to take up time looking at a map without radar data.. here are the areas of concern and the spots are going to have problems" etc...

[MGorse]

Totally agree about TV mets not needing to show every freaking NWS product that is put out... it's a HUGE pet peeve of mine. Of course, when I first started I would show them, but then one day I realized the public generally doesn't care about them and my responsibility is to INFORM THE PUBLIC WHAT'S GOING ON AND/OR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.. not inform them of what the weather service thinks will happen. That's not to say I'm not usually in agreement with them, but it just becomes a big huge cluster**** when your DMA is between 3 or 4 offices that seemingly never communicate and slightly different watches/warnings are coming out at different times etc... at some point you just have to decide "alright, I'm just gonna tell these people where and when and how much it's going to snow/rain etc."

Now obviously, I communicate severe/tornado/flash flood warnings and usually the watches as well but EVEN in those situations sometimes I've gotten to a point where I've literally said out loud on the air during a severe outbreak "you know what, forget about the warnings, here's the radar, here's where the rotations are, and here's where they're headed." This isn't anything against the NWS at all... it's just that the way things are set up, warnings are out for a set time... sometimes they're expired early or chopped off from the back, but that doesn't happen all that often.

Say you have 4 horizontally adjacent counties tornado warned for a storm moving west to east. Most of the time, when the storm reaches county #3, counties 1 and 2 are still included in the warning even though the danger is long gone. If I show the warning and list the counties included, there will be 2 counties in no danger that are being told they are under a tornado warning. Like I said, this is nothing against NWS because they do a phenomenal job in general with these situations and have even improved the process recently with polygonal warnings. I don't expect them to be able to chop regions off warnings every 5-10 minutes because I'm sure they're plenty busy running around scrambling to get other important stuff done.. but it's my responsibility to tell viewers what's going on.. so if I can more effectively do that without showing a map of warning polygons that's what I'll do.

To add, I noticed at least some media/private companies tend to interchange the words "strong" and "severe" when describing thunderstorms. That does not help the public understand what a severe thunderstorm is. I do agree that the media does not need to show the SPC outlooks. Just mention the threat and leave it at that. Regarding the polygon warnings, we are supposed to trim the warning once the threat has ended. Some forecasters do this more than others, but yeah it does not look good when a large part of the warning area has been cleared from a severe thunderstorm for a decent amount of time yet the warning is still up.

[MGorse]

We use coverage terms in the near/short range and probability terms in the extended range. This has worked well for us and I think it's understood well by our customers.

Well some forecasters do. Funny in a way though as we still take calls that the person asks what the chance of precipitation is.

[The Great Zo]

Some comments from James Spann's blog post

... I think a better position to take is to acknowledge that while the NWS False-Alarm-Ratio (FAR) is fairly high (something I’ll discuss in the next paragraph), the NWS still needs to continue to try to issue accurate tornado warnings for these types of events since there are certainly a non-trivial amount of cases where QLCS’s do produce significant tornadoes.

I think this commenter is misunderstanding the abilities of radar and the science behind tornado warnings. The science simply isn't there to catch every EF0 on a squall line without "Alabama to Indiana" blanket warnings. The science is there to warn on portions of the line with the highest potential to produce something a little bit more legitimate.

I also personally believe that even F0 and F1 tornadic winds should be treated differently than straight-line winds of similar magnitude. I suspect that the vertical component of the tornadic winds can potentially cause more structural damage and thus more threat to human life than straight-line winds of the same magnitude.

I've never heard this before, and I'd doubt its true. Frankly, I wish the media and public would get over is the obsession that 80 MPH tornado winds are somehow more special than 80 MPH straight line winds. Why does it really matter what knocked your poorly-constructed pole barn down?

I do think the county based numbers still carry some validity though because as has been pointed out already by James Spann, the NOAA wx radios and many siren based systems are still county based in their technologies.

Absolutely. This is a real factor of "warning fatigue" that is totally beyond the NWS's control. Forecasters are encouraged to give themselves a little bit of wiggle room with a polygon, in order to account for the storm tracking at a slightly different direction than anticipated (or propagating with additional development). However, you'll sometimes see tiny corners of counties chopped out of the polygon. It's a good practice -- why include ten square miles of County X if the threat is very small, forcing the tornado sirens to go off in the county seat that's 20 miles away? It's a way of cutting down the perceived false alarm, but of course it should only be used with caution to ensure that said corner-of-the-county isn't being legitimately threatened.

In addition, I know for a fact that at least one county in Georgia will sound their sirens for a severe thunderstorm warning IF a tornado watch is also in affect. There’s no telling what kind of harm that is doing in the false alarm arena by potentially making people think a tornado is coming when in fact no such warning is in effect.

This practice occurs in numerous locations throughout the country. I have heard the following explanation from one EM. They feel that since a tornado watch means conditions are favorable to produce a tornado, a severe thunderstorm inside that tornado watch could very well produce a tornado -- therefore, the sirens are blown with no tornado warning. There's one giant misstep in logic there -- a notion that the NWS somehow changes its criteria for a tornado warning based on whether or not a big red box is on the map or not. Couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, in a situation where tornadoes are environmentally favorable, the NWS is probably going to be more likely to issue a tornado warning. The point being missed is this -- sometimes, a severe thunderstorm is just a severe thunderstorm. If there's an actual tornado threat, it'll be warned for appropriately.

[isohume]

Well some forecasters do. Funny in a way though as we still take calls that the person asks what the chance of precipitation is.

Yeah I was talking about our office. Ha...yeah I can tell someone there is 40% chance they are going to see rain at their location and they still ask me if it's going to rain. So I'll say, well there will be scattered areas of rain around you and they are like oh okay.

[MGorse]

Why does it really matter what knocked your poorly-constructed pole barn down?

I heard a few years ago that insurance claims, at least in some areas, can be handled differently if the damage was tornadic compared to straight line winds.

Yeah I was talking about our office. Ha...yeah I can tell someone there is 40% chance they are going to see rain at their location and they still ask me if it's going to rain. So I'll say, well there will be scattered areas of rain around you and they are like oh okay.

I had the feeling you were talking about your office. I agree with you though about PoPs. I try to use the descriptive wording as well, especially if I really think there will be that coverage or it is actually ongoing.

[radarman]

This practice occurs in numerous locations throughout the country. I have heard the following explanation from one EM. They feel that since a tornado watch means conditions are favorable to produce a tornado, a severe thunderstorm inside that tornado watch could very well produce a tornado -- therefore, the sirens are blown with no tornado warning.

There is remarkable non-homogeneity in the policies and practices of EMs across the country... heck, across individual counties even.

It certainly does not make it easier to support them on a federal level. EMs have many conferences, and hopefully they stress best practices.

One anecdote I always tell is how an EM in one town will not blow a tornado siren no matter how much advanced warning he has, until the tornado is literally imminent because he wants the siren to mean, "take cover right now", whereas a few towns over if they get 20 minutes notice, they'll blow it right then.

[isohume]

I think this commenter is misunderstanding the abilities of radar and the science behind tornado warnings. The science simply isn't there to catch every EF0 on a squall line without "Alabama to Indiana" blanket warnings. The science is there to warn on portions of the line with the highest potential to produce something a little bit more legitimate.

This is a good point and one that needs to be known more fully by the media and public. Once the science of radar warnings increases...the quality of the warnings will increase as well. It's that simple.

[The Great Zo]

I heard a few years ago that insurance claims, at least in some areas, can be handled differently if the damage was tornadic compared to straight line winds.

I've heard this too, but only in an anecdotal nature. I've heard third-hand from people who have talked directly to insurance company people who said that there's no distinction in making a claim between a tornado and straight-line wind damage. I guess I'm not 100% sure which is correct.

[The Great Zo]

This is a good point and one that needs to be known more fully by the media and public. Once the science of radar warnings increases...the quality of the warnings will increase as well. It's that simple.

Yup. Now who's gonna fund the one-per-county CASA network, the extra forecasters' salaries to monitor them, and the extra AWIPS workstations to monitor them on?

Kidding aside, we should definitely keep in mind that the "more radars = better tornado detection" equation only works if you have a sufficient number of warm bodies looking things over.

(Sounds like a job for the NWSEO. No, wait, I really shouldn't even go there. Forget I said anything.)

[MGorse]

Yup. Now who's gonna fund the one-per-county CASA network, the extra forecasters' salaries to monitor them, and the extra AWIPS workstations to monitor them on?

Kidding aside, we should definitely keep in mind that the "more radars = better tornado detection" equation only works if you have a sufficient number of warm bodies looking things over.

(Sounds like a job for the NWSEO. No, wait, I really shouldn't even go there. Forget I said anything.)

To late, already forwarded.