CT Rain Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 http://davieswx.blogspot.com/2011/07/do-we-warn-too-much-some-thoughts-on.html I continue to see a number of tornado warnings issued in marginal settings where, based on years of data and increased operational knowledge about tornado environments, the atmosphere can only support, at best, weak or brief tornadoes. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 http://davieswx.blog...houghts-on.html I continue to see a number of tornado warnings issued in marginal settings where, based on years of data and increased operational knowledge about tornado environments, the atmosphere can only support, at best, weak or brief tornadoes. Thoughts? Nobody wants to be the RADAR operator in an event that kills people where no warnings were issued. This discussion can go on for years with no outcome. There is no perfect scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 Nobody wants to be the RADAR operator in an event that kills people where no warnings were issued. This discussion can go on for years with no outcome. There is no perfect scenario. I'd argue warning fatigue is more dangerous than not warning marginal situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I'd argue warning fatigue is more dangerous than not warning marginal situations. Sure, I won't agree or disagree. But it goes back to the original comment. Nobody wants to be on the desk during a fatal event with no warning. Coming from that viewpoint, how would you tackle this scenario when the job description is "protect life and property", especially when the science is far from perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 Sure, I won't agree or disagree. But it goes back to the original comment. Nobody wants to be on the desk during a fatal event with no warning. Coming from that viewpoint, how would you tackle this scenario? Well the system we have is too black and white. There's no way to distinguish between the typical 2-4 BS tornado warnings we get per year in my market and a legitimate threat to public safety with a confirmed monster on the ground. I think given the current system there really is nothing that can be done to alleviate warning fatigue... particularly when the NWS seems to go out of their way to make sure their POD is sky high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Well the system we have is too black and white. There's no way to distinguish between the typical 2-4 BS tornado warnings we get per year in my market and a legitimate threat to public safety with a confirmed monster on the ground. I think given the current system there really is nothing that can be done to alleviate warning fatigue... particularly when the NWS seems to go out of their way to make sure their POD is sky high. So would you suggest missing events as an alternative? You bring up more than valid points, but how does one deal with the alternatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 So would you suggest missing events as an alternative? You bring up more than valid points, but how does one deal with the alternatives? Well given the current system yes. For example a tornado warning on 30 miles of a QLCS for a brief spinup can probably be handled with a strongly worded severe thunderstorm warning. I'd say missing an EF0/EF1 tornado in that situation is probably not a big deal. Other brief spin ups in marginal situations with damage no worse than your run of the mill microburst are probably OK to miss to. I think it probably makes more sense to overhaul the entire system and way that we warn. Storm based warnings are a start but as we saw this year... particularly in Joplin... warning fatigue/overwarning is a huge problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 So would you suggest missing events as an alternative? You bring up more than valid points, but how does one deal with the alternatives? Think of this. As a publicly supported entity, what happens to the NWS when people die in a tornado with no warning? I personally believe the bigger question should be how do we disseminate/communicate threats/impacts in a more clear/informative manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Well given the current system yes. For example a tornado warning on 30 miles of a QLCS for a brief spinup can probably be handled with a strongly worded severe thunderstorm warning. I'd say missing an EF0/EF1 tornado in that situation is probably not a big deal. Other brief spin ups in marginal situations with damage no worse than your run of the mill microburst are probably OK to miss to. I think it probably makes more sense to overhaul the entire system and way that we warn. Storm based warnings are a start but as we saw this year... particularly in Joplin... warning fatigue/overwarning is a huge problem. I think there is some agreement here. This is where social science aspect comes in and plays a big part. The NWS/NOAA is working hard here. The science of weather is not only changing in forecasting, but it very well may be changing faster in the social science aspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 Think of this. As a publicly supported entity, what happens to the NWS when people die in a tornado with no warning? I personally believe the bigger question should be how do we disseminate/communicate threats/impacts in a more clear/informative manner. That's exactly why the NWS makes sure to warn even marginal situations. It's not their fault... but that's why it happens. You're right it all comes down to communicating the threat and impact well. Easier said than done. Differentiating between your run of the mill tornado warning that has next to no impact on a given population and a confirmed violent tornado moving into a populated area is important. Think of it like this... for the most part the call to action statements are virtually identical for a marginal threat and a more serious threat. With the exception of the monster tornado in Massachusetts on June 1 I would never tell viewers to abandon their cars and lie in a ditch. I'd look like an idiot saying that for the storms that get warnings around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 It's worth trying to improve what can be improved but at some point I think we just have to accept that we were really unlucky this year and a significant number of people were going to die no matter what kind of system was in place. I disagree that it's ok to miss some events but I'm sure there are some situations where a SVR is *clearly* a better option. However, trying to determine when that is the case may not always be easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 It's worth trying to improve what can be improved but at some point I think we just have to accept that we were really unlucky this year and a significant number of people were going to die no matter what kind of system was in place. I disagree that it's ok to miss some events but I'm sure there are some situations where a SVR is *clearly* a better option. However, trying to determine when that is the case may not always be easy. Well said. Getting the info out is the MOST important part. What we need to learn and improve is how that information is both disseminated and interpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Not this discussion again and no it's never okay to miss an event on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 Not this discussion again and no it's never okay to miss an event on purpose. Who is talking about missing events on purpose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Who is talking about missing events on purpose? Sound familiar? "I'd say missing an EF0/EF1 tornado in that situation is probably not a big deal." "Other brief spin ups in marginal situations with damage no worse than your run of the mill microburst are probably OK to miss to." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 Sound familiar? "I'd say missing an EF0/EF1 tornado in that situation is probably not a big deal." "Other brief spin ups in marginal situations with damage no worse than your run of the mill microburst are probably OK to miss to." There's a difference between missing something on "purpose" and not warning a marginal situation when confidence in an actual touchdown is not that high. And either way this conversation is about the blog post above that I'm guessing you didn't read about whether or not a new/different system is a good idea. Thanks for taking quotes out of context though... really adds a lot to the conversation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 There's a difference between missing something on "purpose" and not warning a marginal situation when confidence in an actual touchdown is not that high. Who says confidence is not high in "marginal" situations? Many (most) times, you're never quite sure if the rotation will make it all the way to the ground. The warnings are still justified tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 Who says confidence is not high in "marginal" situations? Many (most) times, you're never quite sure if the rotation will make it all the way to the ground. The warnings are still justified tho. But for each situation you have a different confidence level. Either way there's not easy solution and I'm not saying that the NWS is wrong with what they're doing presently. I think in the future we can find a better way that eliminates warning fatigue that is probably a bigger issue than most in the NWS (or the field in general) want to admit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 But for each situation you have a different confidence level. Either way there's not easy solution and I'm not saying that the NWS is wrong with what they're doing presently. I think in the future we can find a better way that eliminates warning fatigue that is probably a bigger issue than most in the NWS want to admit. Warning fatigue? Can I see the data on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 But for each situation you have a different confidence level. Either way there's not easy solution and I'm not saying that the NWS is wrong with what they're doing presently. I think in the future we can find a better way that eliminates warning fatigue that is probably a bigger issue than most in the NWS (or the field in general) want to admit. Disagree totally. Any evidence for this comment here? It is a pretty bold statement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Is warning fatigue what happens when the public doesn't head a warning due to actual or perceived busted warnings in the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 Disagree totally. Any evidence for this comment here? It is a pretty bold statement... Considering the false alarm ratio for tornado warnings is about 75% I'd say many people don't want to admit a high FAR is a problem when the emphasis for many mets is making sure they don't "miss" an even regardless of how small or isolated an event is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginx snewx Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Warning fatigue is real, ask JOMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Considering the false alarm ratio for tornado warnings is about 75% I'd say many people don't want to admit a high FAR is a problem when the emphasis for many mets is making sure they don't "miss" an event. No...the FAR is still a big concern. The radar science just isn't there right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 No...the FAR is still a big concern. The radar science just isn't there right now. Agree with you there. I'm not placing blame here either... just want to make that clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Agree with you there. I'm not placing blame here either... just want to make that clear. I know you're not. Until things improve and are applied out of research the FAR will change little I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Considering the false alarm ratio for tornado warnings is about 75% I'd say many people don't want to admit a high FAR is a problem when the emphasis for many mets is making sure they don't "miss" an even regardless of how small or isolated an event is. Your thinking here is so flawed I am beginning to believe you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Once again, given the imperfect science, do you suggest it is OK NOT to relay potentially life threatening information because it is perceived to be "isolated or small"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 Your thinking here is so flawed I am beginning to believe you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Once again, given the imperfect science, do you suggest it is OK NOT to relay potentially life threatening information because it is perceived to be "isolated or small"? I'm not saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Prior to the May 22nd Joplin tornado, there was a tornado warning on May 12th, 10 days before. I believe the sirens in the polygon went off as well, and as usual, 'nothing happened'. I looked at the setup for that day and while the spin-up occurred very rapidly in this cell, it never reached the ground or sustained an actual funnel cloud. I personally witnessed the rotation just to my west and it was cool looking but very unorganized and had a 'collapsed' look. I just looked at the mesoanalysis for that time and conditions weren't really favorable for a strong tornado as the author depicted but still if this thing would have touched down, who knows what would have happened? I wonder if this event caused people to think that 'nothing would happen' on May 22nd as well. Caitlin McArdles video (she's a met, and was also on that video of the KSN tower cam screaming for people to take cover during May 22nd): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Is warning fatigue what happens when the public doesn't head a warning due to actual or perceived busted warnings in the past? It's taken from the Picher, OK NWS tornado assessment. http://www.weather.g...thers_day09.pdf Fact—EMs frequently mentioned the word “fatigue.” EMs used the terms “watch fatigue,” “warning fatigue,” and “siren fatigue.” The reference to fatigue indicated that NWS issued many watches or warnings during which no significant weather occurred. Recommendation 13—NWS meteorologists should work with communications experts and behavioral experts to evaluate the impact of different lead times on reliability of warnings and on human responses. This should include determining the correct balance between increasing lead time without adversely increasing false alarms and creating “warning fatigue.” Also: Finding 10b—Despite residents' knowledge that tornadoes occur in this area and their previous experience receiving tornado watches and warnings, people did not always personalize the threat. The residents did not perceive themselves to be at serious risk based solely on a NWS watch or warning. Many of those interviewed, including EMs and other public officials, mentioned that they have been under numerous tornado watches and warnings where “nothing happens.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.