Master of Disaster Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 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. And sometimes that wont even work. In June 2006, we evacuated 2,100 residents in the middle of the night after the dam at Lake Needwood started leaking. Of those 2,100, 95 refused to leave after having police and fire both knock on their doors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauDodson Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 WeatherBrains has this topic - last night Episode 316 http://weatherbrains.com/weatherbrains/ For those interested - they also have a Facebook page for comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 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. I think the change with SVR containing any tornado wording will be largely transparent to the public. Just as precautionary/preparedness action statements say tornadoes can form without warning from a severe thunderstorm now, they will continue to say that in the future. In the enhanced case there will now be a tag at the end of the warning statement to alert users that a tornado is possible from the storm, in addition to expect hail size and wind speed. Similarly, QLCS/squall line tornadoes will be handled as they always have been (unless there is some policy change I'm unaware of). Lead time will still likely be poor (when compared to supercellular storms) but if a TVS spins up one volume scan or a supercellular meso can maintain itself within the line and needs a TOR, one will be issued. I don't think the "TORNADO...POSSIBLE" tag is meant to blanket all non-supercellular tornadoes within a SVR. I read things like this: baseline severe weather...SVR severe weather with rotation, tornado watch or some meso boundary in the vicinity...SVR "TORNADO...POSSIBLE" tornado expected to be imminent or confirmed (spotter, debris ball, etc)...TOR tornado imminent or confimed with conditions favoring EF2+...TOR "DAMAGE...SIGNIFICANT" tornado confirmed, doing damage, conditions favoring EF3+, heading towards a town...TOR "DAMAGE...CATASTROPHIC" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I don't think the "TORNADO...POSSIBLE" tag is meant to blanket all non-supercellular tornadoes within a SVR. I agree, I don't think that either. I'm talking about the hard to identify tors that we normally take the hit on for the FAR in our CWFA...the broken-S tors, the TMB tors, the tropical tors, etc. If this tiered warning system goes into effect, I could see these ill defined tors being tagged with the enhanced SVR since there is just as likely a chance that a tor will form as not form. In this sense...the perceived POD will begin to take a hit at the expense of the FAR. And if we don't cover these sort of situations with the new SVR, then we wont make any gains on the FAR. To me, changing the warning metric only shifts the tor hit from FAR to POD. We need better radar science to incorporate operationally...not a new warning scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Zo Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 There's nothing in the PDD that suggests the tiered warning system is also introducing a change in verification metrics. The "Tornado Possible" tag for a SVR is just a different way of saying "severe thunderstorms can and occasionally do produce tornadoes" as is done now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 There's nothing in the PDD that suggests the tiered warning system is also introducing a change in verification metrics. The "Tornado Possible" tag for a SVR is just a different way of saying "severe thunderstorms can and occasionally do produce tornadoes" as is done now. We say that now in SVRs if a TO.A is in effect, that is true. The new enhaned SVR would say that regardless if a TO.A is in effect. So, if nothing is changing wrt warning types then why are they doing this experiment? It seems like a huge waste of time. What are they looking to find out exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Why are you worried about 'score' instead of about warning people or getting people to take the warnings more seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Zo Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 We say that now in SVRs if a TO.A is in effect, that is true. The new enhaned SVR would say that regardless if a TO.A is in effect. Forecasters can include that wording whenever they think it's necessary, whether a tornado watch is in effect or not. That's not changing with the tiered system. So, if nothing is changing wrt warning types then why are they doing this experiment? It seems like a huge waste of time. What are they looking to find out exactly? I think you may be misinterpreting the point of the tiered warnings. Why are you worried about 'score' instead of about warning people or getting people to take the warnings more seriously? Your insinuation is correct. This has nothing to do with the score, and everything to do with finding a way to better communicate the threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Why are you worried about 'score' instead of about warning people or getting people to take the warnings more seriously? Because the public, em's and the media is now concerned about our high FAR score for tornadoes, like it is something that is new. Even tho the numbers have gotten better along with the increased radar science the past couple decades. Lowering the FAR, it has been surmised, will lead to folks taking warnings more serious, in theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I think you may be misinterpreting the point of the tiered warnings. I think you're right. I was assuming it was to help lower the tor FAR. Better comunication wrt to tor warnings is a needed goal tho for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master of Disaster Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Heard straight from the mouth of the SPC Director yesterday that if you are calling this pilot a "tiered warning". You ARE providing misinformation. Its NOT a tiered warning, its an enhanced threat text pilot only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 *BUMP* Starts today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Some people here think that the NWS is just trying to 'scare' them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Some people here think that the NWS is just trying to 'scare' them. They're supposed to get scared when there's a tornado coming right for them... would they prefer "So yeah, there's a tornado coming. You should, I don't know, take shelter or something."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Few people even know about the Extreme Wind Warning, NHCs version of a PDS. Amazing that up until 2005 you'd get the same warning for a 5% chance of a cat 1 as you would for a 90% chance of a cat 5. I think people in Irene got confused and thought Hurricane Warning was the worst you could get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyhb Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Some people here think that the NWS is just trying to 'scare' them. Well yeah when you live in prime tornado country and had the costliest tornado in history/deadliest in 64 years go through your town... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 I think it was the wording of some of the news articles I've seen. It actually says they are trying to scare you. Here's one from the AP: http://abcnews.go.co...-scare-16046020 Comments like this from Joplin area: "I thnk 'unsurvivable" would definitely make people move, unfortunately it might cause people to panic, maybe get in an accident, and then you have more people in harms way. If people aren't smart enough to take warnings seriously after the Joplin Tornado, then nothing is going to work." "Sometimes some of the warnings are for an hour or longer even. I think people would be more apt to take cover if they knew the threat was for exactly where they were rather than on the other side of the county." "Too much panic will occur if they start using those words. multiple soundings of the sirens would be better. I am afraid the new wording will end up causing more deaths due to panic more so than the tornado it's self" "Are they just trying to scare people? We'll still be outside looking for it and people will soon become desensitized to the new words." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Some people here think that the NWS is just trying to 'scare' them. They are actually limiting the scare factor IMO . When they issue the level 1 warning (like > 95 out of 100 warnings), I would be relieved that a level 2 or 3 wasn't issued. It would be nice to know that I am not in much physical danger as long as I am indoors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 They are actually limiting the scare factor IMO . When they issue the level 1 warning (like > 95 out of 100 warnings), I would be relieved that a level 2 or 3 wasn't issued. It would be nice to know that I am not in much physical danger as long as I am indoors. Valid put that should be stressed... the stronger wording is only for rare, high-impact events and, to touch on one of the quotes in JoMo's post, would not lead to desensitization if it's almost never used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauDodson Posted April 3, 2012 Author Share Posted April 3, 2012 Valid put that should be stressed... the stronger wording is only for rare, high-impact events and, to touch on one of the quotes in JoMo's post, would not lead to desensitization if it's almost never used. Right - like the Joplin tornado that went from nothing to an EF5 in just a few minutes. The NWS didn't even realize what was happening until it was too late. There would not have been any stronger wording for the Joplin tornado. It would been a typical tornado warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Valid put that should be stressed... the stronger wording is only for rare, high-impact events and, to touch on one of the quotes in JoMo's post, would not lead to desensitization if it's almost never used. Yes I can see that too. It's hard to force the public to reeducate themselves so this system may take a few years to kick in. If we colorcoded the Warnings like the terror warnings pweople could probably figure out a code Yellow wasn't the highest without any explaination at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauDodson Posted April 3, 2012 Author Share Posted April 3, 2012 Heard straight from the mouth of the SPC Director yesterday that if you are calling this pilot a "tiered warning". You ARE providing misinformation. Its NOT a tiered warning, its an enhanced threat text pilot only. Sigh If it is an enhanced threat text then they should go back and reword the whole statement of purpose. Call it what you want - it is a tiered warning Some offices are calling it an "impact based warning product" This is straight from the objective http://products.weat..._IBW_011012.pdf NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PRODUCT DESCRIPTION DOCUMENT (PDD) TYPE: Enhancement to Official Product DATE: January 11, 2012 Enhanced Product – Tornado Warnings and Associated Follow-up Statements Modified to Emphasize Impacts, Intensity, and Recommended Actions via Bulleted Messages and Coded Tag Lines Feedback Period: April 2, 2012 – November 30, 2012 For tornado warnings (TOR), forecasters will be provided three options. The standard or “base” tornado warning represents the first option. The chief improvements for these base warnings – likely the most common type issued through the season – will be bullets which plainly and clearly communicate hazard and impact information, calls to action rephrased by social science partners, and tags which identify whether the tornado is observed or radar-indicated (implied statement of confidence in evidence), predicted hail size, and the option to add strength of non-tornadic thunderstorm-related wind. This warning type will be selected for cases in which there is credible evidence of a tornado. The second level of tornado warning – one for which there is substantial evidence of a significant tornado coincident with a high impact event – will include the phrase "This is a Particularly Dangerous Situation" and incorporate enhanced wording within the second warning bullet to identify a high level of risk, dramatic description of expected damage and impacts, and promote serious urgency in taking action to seek shelter immediately. The "PDS" warning will also append an explicit damage threat reference in the form of a tag line code "TORNADO DAMAGE THREAT...SIGNIFICANT", rather than simply discriminating between observed or probable. The third and highest level of tornado warning will be reserved for those rare cases in which a known, violent tornado is approaching which is likely to experience devastating damage - events such as Joplin. For these situations, the enhanced wording will include a "TORNADO EMERGENCY" announcement, the recommended action will be brief, clear and extremely urgent (e.g., IF YOU ARE IN OR NEAR LIBERTY...SEEK SHELTER IMMEDIATELY!), and the tag line will read: TORNADO DAMAGE THREAT...CATASTROPHIC. http://products.weat..._IBW_011012.pdf --------------- From dictionary.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauDodson Posted April 3, 2012 Author Share Posted April 3, 2012 Also - I would point out in the objectives from that PDF This part here The third and highest level of tornado warning will be reserved for those rare cases in which a known, violent tornado is approaching which is likely to experience devastating damage - events such as Joplin. For these situations, the enhanced wording will include a "TORNADO EMERGENCY" announcement, the recommended action will be brief, clear and extremely urgent (e.g., IF YOU ARE IN OR NEAR LIBERTY...SEEK SHELTER IMMEDIATELY!) This is a bit misleading. Using Joplin as the example - poor choice. That warning was a typical tornado warning. There was no indication an EF5 tornado was about to wipe out Joplin. At least not while it was occurring - or until it was too late for most. The first tornado warning - would have been a typical tornado warning - little fanfare NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SPRINGFIELD MO 517 PM CDT SUN MAY 22 2011 THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN SPRINGFIELD HAS ISSUED A * TORNADO WARNING FOR... NORTHWESTERN NEWTON COUNTY IN SOUTHWEST MISSOURI... SOUTHEASTERN CHEROKEE COUNTY IN SOUTHEAST KANSAS... SOUTHWESTERN JASPER COUNTY IN SOUTHWEST MISSOURI... * UNTIL 600 PM CDT. * AT 514 PM CDT...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A TORNADO NEAR RIVERTON...OR 4 MILES NORTH OF BAXTER SPRINGS...MOVING NORTHEAST AT 40 MPH. * LOCATIONS IMPACTED INCLUDE BAXTER SPRINGS...CLIFF VILLAGE...DENNIS ACRES...DIAMOND...DUENWEG...DUQUESNE...FIDELITY...GALENA...IRON GATES...JOPLIN...LEAWOOD...LOWELL...REDINGS MILL...RIVERTON... SAGINAW...SHOAL CREEK DRIVE...SHOAL CREEK ESTATES...SHOAL CREEK ESTATE AND SILVER CREEK. The second statement (which was not a tornado warning but rather a severe weather statement) 530 PM CDT SUN MAY 22 2011 ...A TORNADO WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 600 PM CDT FOR NORTHWESTERN NEWTON...SOUTHWESTERN JASPER AND SOUTHEASTERN CHEROKEE COUNTIES... AT 524 PM CDT...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR CONTINUED TO INDICATE A TORNADO NEAR RIVERTON...OR NEAR GALENA...MOVING EAST AT 20 MPH. THIS STORM HAS AS HISTORY OF PRODUCING A FUNNEL CLOUD IN RIVERTON KANSAS. LOCATIONS IMPACTED INCLUDE CLIFF VILLAGE...DENNIS ACRES...DIAMOND... DUENWEG...DUQUESNE...FIDELITY...GALENA...IRON GATES...JOPLIN... LEAWOOD...LOWELL...REDINGS MILL...RIVERTON...SAGINAW...SHOAL CREEK DRIVE...SHOAL CREEK ESTATES...SHOAL CREEK ESTATE AND SILVER CREEK. The third statement - again no new tornado warning - NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SPRINGFIELD MO 539 PM CDT SUN MAY 22 2011 KSC021-MOC097-145-222300- /O.CON.KSGF.TO.W.0031.000000T0000Z-110522T2300Z/ CHEROKEE KS-JASPER MO-NEWTON MO- 539 PM CDT SUN MAY 22 2011 ...A TORNADO WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 600 PM CDT FOR NORTHWESTERN NEWTON...SOUTHWESTERN JASPER AND SOUTHEASTERN CHEROKEE COUNTIES... AT 534 PM CDT...TRAINED WEATHER SPOTTERS REPORTED A TORNADO NEAR GALENA...MOVING EAST AT 25 MPH. THIS STORM IS MOVING INTO THE CITY OF JOPLIN. And the final statement - again no new tornado warning (this was a SVS) KSC021-MOC097-145-222300- /O.CON.KSGF.TO.W.0031.000000T0000Z-110522T2300Z/ CHEROKEE KS-JASPER MO-NEWTON MO- 539 PM CDT SUN MAY 22 2011 ...A TORNADO WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 600 PM CDT FOR NORTHWESTERN NEWTON...SOUTHWESTERN JASPER AND SOUTHEASTERN CHEROKEE COUNTIES... AT 534 PM CDT...TRAINED WEATHER SPOTTERS REPORTED A TORNADO NEAR GALENA...MOVING EAST AT 25 MPH. THIS STORM IS MOVING INTO THE CITY OF JOPLIN At that point everyone knew that something bad was happening. But it was too late. One might argue that at some point in these SVS follow-ups that the NWS would have issued a new warning - added the higher threat level and changed the wording. Again - in what time frame? All of this happened in a matter of seconds and minutes - 5:17 PM was the warning. It was at 5:30 PM that they mentioned a funnel cloud (hardly anything to pull all stops out for). Then at 5:39 PM they realized that perhaps something very bad was about to happen. No additional tornado warnings were issued - 1 tornado warning followed by a few follow-up statements that many people never would have read or received. Perhaps one could argue some of the Alabama tornadoes last year would have been excellent candidates for these type of warnings. The NWS did use the tornado emergency terminology several times during that event. TORNADO DAMAGE THREAT...CATASTROPHIC. The NWS is already including information about tornadoes in their warning products. Our NWS tells us if they have confirmed damage - confirmed tornadoes. One idea that the NWS should implement immediately is to quit using SVS products for tornado warning follow-ups. This is absolutely ridiculous. The NWS needs to tone alert any and all tornado warnings or tornado warning updates. An SVS should never be used for a tornado warning without using the tone alert. Many people have their weather radios programmed just for tornado warnings. They would have never heard the SVS follow-up. Many media people often times do not see the SVS follow-up. Tornado warnings need to be used for tornado warning updates or follow-up messages. This is even more true when additional information has been received about a tornadic storm. Asking forecasters to forecast impact is just about beyond their scope of expertise. It is also beyond the scope of current radar technology at many offices. One can give an educated guess to impact - but with confidence? I don't know. I am skeptical. Sure - we can all look at some radar images and other data and give a pretty good estimate of what we believe is going to happen on the ground. But can we do that with enough skill - enough times - to matter? Are we going to be asking the NWS to ramp up and ramp down tornado warnings? If so - how would they do that in an effective manner? How much time and energy might be used on achieving the goals set forth in the pdf? Is that time that could be more wisely used on other warnings - monitoring radar? Will the media try to convey these levels to the public? Will they say this on the air? Will some on-air meteorologists tell their viewers that this tornado warning for county A is a level 1 warning - this tornado warning over here is a level 2 tornado warning? Will they find some new phrase to convey the threat level? If they do start conveying the new "tag line levels" then what message will that send to people/public? Will the public be even further confused that their tornado warning may not be as serious as their neighbors tornado warning one county over? I don't know - nobody knows. This is an experiment. Most NWS offices are already including as much information in the warning product as they can. If a tornado is on the ground - then they say that a tornado has been confirmed or reported on the ground. If damage is being reported/confirmed then most offices include that in the warning product - already. How much pressure will we be putting on the radar operators to make sure they ramp up or ramp down the warnings? How much pressure will there be to issue the right tier of warning? Or I guess I should say the right level of warning. Should this warning be tagged as a level 1 - level 2 - level 3 warning? Which tag do we use - at what point do we change the tag? How often can you change the tag on a warning? How do you convey those tag changes to the public (which by the way isn't actually included in the objective of this test - the public). Yet - the news articles being posted talking about the NWS trying to "SCARE THE PUBLIC" - the public wasn't even included in the objectives. The newspaper stories being floated around on-line are classic examples of poor reporting - not telling the whole story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauDodson Posted April 3, 2012 Author Share Posted April 3, 2012 I am also concerned about this statement - on this video http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lsx/?n=ibwpoject What the heck is a "little spin-up tornado" and since when could the NWS decide when those will occur or will not? The Harrisburg, IL EF4 tornado earlier this year was a QLCS tornado. I heard some local meteorologists saying on-air earlier in March that the tornadoes, if they occurred, would be small and quick hitting. What the heck is a small tornado? Is an EF2 a small tornado? EF1? That day a tornado killed 1 person. But yet they were just small tornadoes. :/ In the same video the meteorologist uses the phrase "this is really happening" - "life threatening situation" - will people wait until the warnings say "this is really happening" He also says "little/small spin-up" OR "we feel strong confidence that there is a damaging tornado on the ground" - again what the heck is a damaging tornado? EF1 and EF2 tornadoes kill people - cause major damage - can destroy mobile homes - flip cars. What tornadoes are not damaging? Isn't every tornado a life threatening situation? In additional to all of the above - what meteorologist gets to determine this (see below)? This was a QLCS event in Paducah on February 29th - I am curious whether this is significant or catastrophic? If it was your home what would you call it? And to be clear - This was a radar indicated tornado. If was after 3 am - it was dark out. We did not know what was happening other than radar indicated a tornado. We started getting damage reports soon after it hit the county. This was all after the warning was issued. This was a squall line event. If you answered that this would have been a significant or catastrophic level warning - then you would have been wrong. This would have been a radar indicated "level 1" warning. No doubt we need to find better ways to communicate the threat to the public. I hope that this test works. We absolutely need to get people to improve their response to tornado warnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Very good posts, Beau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Comments like this from Joplin area: "I thnk 'unsurvivable" would definitely make people move, unfortunately it might cause people to panic, maybe get in an accident, and then you have more people in harms way. If people aren't smart enough to take warnings seriously after the Joplin Tornado, then nothing is going to work." "Sometimes some of the warnings are for an hour or longer even. I think people would be more apt to take cover if they knew the threat was for exactly where they were rather than on the other side of the county." "Too much panic will occur if they start using those words. multiple soundings of the sirens would be better. I am afraid the new wording will end up causing more deaths due to panic more so than the tornado it's self" "Are they just trying to scare people? We'll still be outside looking for it and people will soon become desensitized to the new words." While I'd love to think that the public will all of a sudden take action in large numbers, I don't think changing a few statements within a warning is going to see a huge response. At least large enough to cause traffic issues on possible routes to safety. The second comment you gathered has a couple important points to it. First, hopefully the warnings aren't for an hour or more. Any TOR for much longer than a half hour is probably going to produce a pretty large area of FAR. That doesn't mean we still can't get ample lead time beyond a half hour if polygons are managed correctly. Second, the warning being for the other side of the county is still an issue to deal with. While we have polygon warnings, many (most?) of the dissemination methods are still county based, including NOAA weather radios. Until that changes, public perception about how often they are warned probably won't be changing either (despite the fact that the public greatly overestimates how often they are warned). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 This is a bit misleading. Using Joplin as the example - poor choice. That warning was a typical tornado warning. There was no indication an EF5 tornado was about to wipe out Joplin. At least not while it was occurring - or until it was too late for most. And unfortunately, that kind of rapid tornado evolution will still pose a problem for this kind of wording. At that point everyone knew that something bad was happening. But it was too late. One might argue that at some point in these SVS follow-ups that the NWS would have issued a new warning - added the higher threat level and changed the wording. As I understand it, the levels should be interchangeable during SVS updates. As spotters report a tornado on the ground, the next SVS will include the "TORNADO...OBSERVED" tag for example. One idea that the NWS should implement immediately is to quit using SVS products for tornado warning follow-ups. This is absolutely ridiculous. The NWS needs to tone alert any and all tornado warnings or tornado warning updates. An SVS should never be used for a tornado warning without using the tone alert. Many people have their weather radios programmed just for tornado warnings. They would have never heard the SVS follow-up. Many media people often times do not see the SVS follow-up. I think the point about updates carrying a little more significance on weather radios is a valid one. However, when a SVS is issued, it immediately replaces the original TOR. And the object of a weather radio is to alert people that they need to take live saving action, which in my opinion includes continuing to monitor the situation via weather radio. I also sincerely hope the media outlets are receiving SVSs as they are issued, considering this is how we update them on locations, times, speed, reports, etc. When you see Gary England or James Spann reading off a sheet of paper they are reading the just issued SVS more often then not. Asking forecasters to forecast impact is just about beyond their scope of expertise. It is also beyond the scope of current radar technology at many offices. One can give an educated guess to impact - but with confidence? I don't know. I am skeptical. Sure - we can all look at some radar images and other data and give a pretty good estimate of what we believe is going to happen on the ground. But can we do that with enough skill - enough times - to matter? Are we going to be asking the NWS to ramp up and ramp down tornado warnings? If so - how would they do that in an effective manner? How much time and energy might be used on achieving the goals set forth in the pdf? Is that time that could be more wisely used on other warnings - monitoring radar? I'm not sure I entirely agree it's beyond our scope of expertise. We have four enhancements (not tiers ) of tornado warnings (radar indicated, observed, significant, and catastrophic). Making the leap from radar indicated and observed to one that has the potential to produce significant (i.e. EF2+) damage is possible. The harder leap will be from significant to catastrophic. Sure sometimes the signatures are so off the charts you can say catastrophic damage is possible with some degree of confidence, but other times you don't need to have a 200 kt gate to gate couplet to produce catastrophic damage. I also don't think the time management for the warning forecaster will change all that much. These estimations are what we are trying to do anyway with SVSs. If the couplet strengthens, we issue a SVS to beef up wording (or should be anyway). Now this SVS will include a new tag line at the bottom, and a new list of suggested calls to action. It actually may streamline the SVS process a little, with less individual forecaster typing. Will the media try to convey these levels to the public? Will they say this on the air? Will some on-air meteorologists tell their viewers that this tornado warning for county A is a level 1 warning - this tornado warning over here is a level 2 tornado warning? Will they find some new phrase to convey the threat level? If they do start conveying the new "tag line levels" then what message will that send to people/public? Will the public be even further confused that their tornado warning may not be as serious as their neighbors tornado warning one county over? I don't know - nobody knows. This is an experiment. You're right, huge unknown right there. I hope the participating WFOs are educating and conversing with their local affiliates about the best way to go about this. And in my opinion the best way to go about this is to change nothing in the way they typically broadcast the threat with a TOR, but to increase the urgency of the situation as the tag lines increasing from observed through catastrophic. This instead of downplaying the radar indicated TOR, which could lead to complacency for the public. How much pressure will we be putting on the radar operators to make sure they ramp up or ramp down the warnings? How much pressure will there be to issue the right tier of warning? Or I guess I should say the right level of warning. Should this warning be tagged as a level 1 - level 2 - level 3 warning? Which tag do we use - at what point do we change the tag? How often can you change the tag on a warning? How do you convey those tag changes to the public (which by the way isn't actually included in the objective of this test - the public). I guess I'm mostly speaking from my point of view here, but I feel like many of the forecasters I've worked with would agree, but any day that severe weather is possible you feel a great deal of pressure. Nobody wants to miss an event, or falsely warn either. Gut feeling right now is that very few initial TORs will include the significant or catastrophic tags, because it is rare that the first radar signature you warn on is something indicative of significant damage. In general it will be a meso in an environment favorable to produce tornadoes, hopefully well before a tornado is on the ground. As the tornadic circulation develops, sometimes it is quite evident whether it is on the strong side or not, other times you won't have an idea until damage reports come in. That will be when you see tag lines updated in a SVS to significant. And not only are they a small percentage of all tornadoes, but I think catastrophic damage will only be indicated in tag lines with confirmed sightings of large tornadoes and extreme TVSs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanStWx Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I am also concerned about this statement - on this video http://www.crh.noaa....sx/?n=ibwpoject What the heck is a "little spin-up tornado" and since when could the NWS decide when those will occur or will not? The Harrisburg, IL EF4 tornado earlier this year was a QLCS tornado. I heard some local meteorologists saying on-air earlier in March that the tornadoes, if they occurred, would be small and quick hitting. What the heck is a small tornado? Is an EF2 a small tornado? EF1? That day a tornado killed 1 person. But yet they were just small tornadoes. :/ He also says "little/small spin-up" OR "we feel strong confidence that there is a damaging tornado on the ground" - again what the heck is a damaging tornado? EF1 and EF2 tornadoes kill people - cause major damage - can destroy mobile homes - flip cars. What tornadoes are not damaging? Isn't every tornado a life threatening situation? Excellent points here, and I could not agree more. I think we, as meteorologists, can sometimes fall into this trap of saying these things because we understand what we're saying, when the public is actually receiving a completely different message. All tornadoes can be potentially deadly, as you point out, and we can't diminish the threat of EF0 and EF1 tornadoes just because damage may not be widespread. What may remove a few shingles from your neighbors roof is significant when it rolls your mobile home into a grove of trees across the street. We say damaging and understand that to mean a tornado that has the potential to damage a well built structure, but again if you live in a mobile home it's not going to matter what the tornadic winds are like if you aren't anchored to the ground. That's what is so important about this experiment in my mind; to avoid downplaying a radar indicated tornado. Every tornado is still life threatening, but adding a significant damage tag is meant to say even if you don't live in a mobile home your roof might get ripped off, or your bedroom walls could come down, and you should probably think about heading below ground or into the lowest interior room or your home without windows. Your photo is fantastic evidence of this, because depending on whether that's your property or not you could feel many different ways about that damage. The education of all parties involved with the new wording is extremely important. When I think catastrophic damage, I think even sheltering in the lowest interior room may not be enough to survive. And if that is indeed the intended message, the message needs to be consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillB Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I'd like to be optimistic about this. And maybe it's just that things are different in the Northeast. I have found that even with our current level of outreach (which is not exactly insubstantial) we still have a lot of people who are challenged by the difference of watch-vs-warning. Now we hope to give them different levels of warnings. This may be good for weather professionals and allied fields (emergency management, for example); but will it help the average taxpayer? This is yet to be shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.