SPC announces two new risk categories for 2014 season:

[wxmeddler]

 

Is 5 categories too much? Will people get confused? Or is this a good change? Discuss.

[thewxmann]

My 2 cents: from a public perspective, it's hard to differentiate between enhanced and MDT -- which entails a greater risk?

[Hoosier]

Not a fan of that enhanced word.  Moderate/high risks essentially mean that there is an enhanced threat of severe weather, but now that word really can't be used to describe those threat levels.

[Hoosier]

I thought this topic sounded familiar...turns out this change was discussed back in 2012 for 2013 but it didn't happen.

 

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/37066-spc-modifying-risk-categories-in-2013/

[HailMan06]

Just my 2 cents:

It would have been better to replace the slight category with elevated. An elevated category would let the public know and clarify that the threat is higher than normal as well as avoid the issue of being strongly worded.

[Eskimo Joe]

Seems like SPC is focusing on tornado threat now.

[weatherwiz]

Just my 2 cents:

It would have been better to replace the slight category with elevated. An elevated category would let the public know and clarify that the threat is higher than normal but avoids the issue of being strongly worded.

 

I completely agree with this.  

 

As for the changes...not a big fan at all.  

[Chicago Storm]

Using "marginal" instead of "see text" is fine.

 

When first seeing the changes during the ChaserCon presentation I was alright with "enhanced" as well, but now that time has passed, not so much. Enhanced can be related to a moderate risk.

 

Should have just kept those three main levels (slight, moderate, high) and just went with the "see text" change.

[wxmeddler]

Just got this tweet from someone at the confrence:

JenniferBroome 2:33pm via Twitter for iPhone

@wxmeddler @USTornadoes I agree it's big news. Just confirmed implementation is likely sometime in April.

[JoMo]

Enhanced sounds scary. Moderate doesn't sound as scary as enhanced. I think they should have went with a different word.

[Superstorm93]

In my opinion, the enhanced category should be after MDT. The word 'enhanced' just simply sounds more threatening than a 'moderate' risk to begin with. 

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

I know a lot of pro mets sent similar comments about the confusing nature of the wording when they were seeking feedback.  Sad to see they didn't take the advice.

[Turtle]

I know a lot of pro mets sent similar comments about the confusing nature of the wording when they were seeking feedback.  Sad to see they didn't take the advice.

 

Yes, agreed.  

 

Think there should be 4 categories...Marginal to 5%, then Enhanced, Moderate and High.  Trying to go from 2% to 5% on Day 1 seems too much of a CYA to me.  What do I know, though...I'm only in SNE where we don't get TORs, right?!??!  

 

My 2 cents worth.

 

--Turtle  

[weatherwiz]

Elevated

Moderate

High 

 

I don't see why those just can't be the three distinct categories.  Just have elevated replace slight risk.  I don't see the need for this enhanced category...I think that would be implied by the hatching.  

[andyhb]

So we have the impact based warnings (have to love those "a severe thunderstorm capable of producing a large and extremely dangerous tornado" wordings) and now this.

 

Agreed with everyone else here that "enhanced" implies something more significant than a "moderate" risk.

[huronicane]

Yes, agreed.  

 

Think there should be 4 categories...Marginal to 5%, then Enhanced, Moderate and High.  Trying to go from 2% to 5% on Day 1 seems too much of a CYA to me.  What do I know, though...I'm only in SNE where we don't get TORs, right?!??!  

 

My 2 cents worth.

 

--Turtle  

 

I was never a fan of a 2%  tornado threat being a "see text".  When people think of severe weather, tornadoes usually pop right to the front of their mind, so a 2% has always seemed worthy of a slight in my eyes, but marginal does seem to cover that better.

[Chumpson]

We've been discussing these potential changes for many years.  The notion of changing "SEE TEXT" to "marginal" dates back to the early-mid 2000s, though it never gained traction for various reasons.  The addition of the ENH category was secondary to adding something to reflect SEE TEXT in a graphical sense.  I don't know what the other comments mean when you say we didn't consider the input from last year - you mean we're not proposing exactly what you suggested?  Anyway, these changes are still *proposed* and nothing will be formal until the official change notice is sent.

 

FWIW, I can see some advantages to the idea of marginal, elevated, moderate, high for the categories.  Of course, we'd start a whole different firestorm by proposing removal of the old familiar SLGT!  Regarding the meaning of the words (i.e., "moderate" vs. "enhanced"), these are not stand alone categories, and the words will always be used in the same context (e.g., you'll always see MDT inside of ENH, which infers greater risk with MDT, and also corresponds to higher probabilities).  None of this would be necessary if people would simply focus on the probability forecasts which drive the categories.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Yes, agreed.  

 

Think there should be 4 categories...Marginal to 5%, then Enhanced, Moderate and High.  Trying to go from 2% to 5% on Day 1 seems too much of a CYA to me.  What do I know, though...I'm only in SNE where we don't get TORs, right?!??!  

 

My 2 cents worth.

 

--Turtle  

 

That's a good way of doing it.

 

As a side note, I honestly see no difference between "elevated" and "enhanced"... I think the general public would view them equally.  I think the worst word in the current classification scheme is "moderate".  I know when I talk to members of the general public about it, they get confused by it and think that it means less than it actually does.

[nwburbschaser]

That's a good way of doing it.

 

As a side note, I honestly see no difference between "elevated" and "enhanced"... I think the general public would view them equally.  I think the worst word in the current classification scheme is "moderate".  I know when I talk to members of the general public about it, they get confused by it and think that it means less than it actually does.

How much are the outlooks actually directed towards the general public? It seems to me that most people don't have a clue about these outlooks so as long as Emergency Managers and meteorologists understand them then that is what matters most.  They can pass on the information however they like from there. 

[nwohweather]

Why not Pretty Low, Low, Medium, High, Deadly?

[wildweatherman179]

Just going with percentages would work for me. Breaking it into 10 percent levels would make a more detailed map as well or even 20 percent to still make 5 categories.

[andyhb]

Just going with percentages would work for me. Breaking it into 10 percent levels would make a more detailed map as well or even 20 percent to still make 5 categories.

 

Except the threshold for high risk is already set at 60% for D2 high risks (all severe) and D1 high risks (60% wind or 30% tornado), having probabilities higher than that would be unrealistic in most cases because severe weather is usually localized even within a higher risk area (there's a reason they are called "severe local storms").

[andyhb]

Why not Pretty Low, Low, Medium, High, Deadly?

 

Well for the last category, deadly severe events can happen in any risk area, so that would be redundant and potentially confusing. What does pretty low constitute?

[thewxmann]

Why not Pretty Low, Low, Medium, High, Deadly?

 

I would go with Marginal, Low, Medium, High, Extreme.

 

But, since the public/media are accustomed  to the current risk categories, I would just go with: Marginal, Slight, Elevated, Moderate, High. It's not much better, but I feel elevated is less strong of a word than enhanced.

[weatherwiz]

We've been discussing these potential changes for many years.  The notion of changing "SEE TEXT" to "marginal" dates back to the early-mid 2000s, though it never gained traction for various reasons.  The addition of the ENH category was secondary to adding something to reflect SEE TEXT in a graphical sense.  I don't know what the other comments mean when you say we didn't consider the input from last year - you mean we're not proposing exactly what you suggested?  Anyway, these changes are still *proposed* and nothing will be formal until the official change notice is sent.

 

FWIW, I can see some advantages to the idea of marginal, elevated, moderate, high for the categories.  Of course, we'd start a whole different firestorm by proposing removal of the old familiar SLGT!  Regarding the meaning of the words (i.e., "moderate" vs. "enhanced"), these are not stand alone categories, and the words will always be used in the same context (e.g., you'll always see MDT inside of ENH, which infers greater risk with MDT, and also corresponds to higher probabilities).  None of this would be necessary if people would simply focus on the probability forecasts which drive the categories.

 

This is a fantastic point!  It would also help if people had a better understanding of probabilities and probabilistic forecast b/c if the level of understanding could be much higher, people would understand forecasts so much better and have more realistic expectations.  

[isohume]

As long as it stops one group from bitching for a while, I think it's a great modification. 

[WxJAK]

We've been discussing these potential changes for many years....

 

... None of this would be necessary if people would simply focus on the probability forecasts which drive the categories.

 

Why not just go to a wholly probabilistic communication format?  Personally, I think that would be ideal.  If however the answer to that question is that the public is perceived at not being sufficiently capable (en masse) to translate such a probabilistic communications format into the appropriate action, then it would behoove us to make sure that the categorical descriptors are as clear and rightly actionable as possible. 

 

Having spent the better part of the last decade toward this end in the context of the utility industry, I suggest that the proposed guidance does not accomplish that goal as there is too much room for varying and overlapping interpretations by the public of how much probabilistic threat a given label actually connotes.

 

Jacob

[Mr Bob]

Odds are slim that most of the public has a clue about any of it. Weather engaged people are the only ones who will care, and all this does is create more confusion for the average person on the street.

[isohume]

How much are the outlooks actually directed towards the general public? It seems to me that most people don't have a clue about these outlooks so as long as Emergency Managers and meteorologists understand them then that is what matters most.  They can pass on the information however they like from there. 

 

This is true. These charts are aimed at the met community, em's, media, etc. The problem has been the media shows them and tries to explain them, without much success I've noted. 

[JoMo]

"Normal" (non-weather people) think that a 30% chance of a tornado is a "Low" chance. When the local weatherman says: "Slight chance of showers (30%)" you look at that as it probably won't rain. So there is some confusing overlap for people when it comes to the difference between the % forecasts.