I figured I need to expand my thoughts on the watch and warning system I started here yesterday. I wrote about too many tornado warnings that don’t verify, too many severe thunderstorm warningss, and too many “moderate” and “high” risk severe weather outlooks that are busts.
It is easy to sit here in a TV weather office and be critical; here are some suggestions:
Like I wrote here yesterday, I think a “tornado emergency” messages needs to be formalized. Used only when a tornado is down and has caused damage. This is NOT to replace tornado warnings, but simply to add urgency when there is an immediate known threat to human life. Many NWS offices and TV stations use the term “tornado emergency” in such a situation; I think it needs to be included in the official warning list. We used the term "tornado emergency" during events like the Tuscaloosa F4 tornado on December 16, 2000, and the long track tornadoes across north Alabama on November 10, 2002.
I think the bar needs to be raised on severe thunderstorm criteria. Few people pay attention to severe thunderstorm warnings now with current criteria (58 mph winds or greater, or hail 3/4" in diameter or larger). I suggest defining a severe storm as one that has winds of 65 mph or higher, or hail 1” in diameter or larger. This will cut back on the number of warnings, and hopefully lead to better public awareness of their importance.
I also suggest we junk the “slight, moderate, and high” risk levels as defined by the Storm Prediction Center. When people hear “slight”, most folks think there is little chance of severe weather. That is actually the standard term used prior to most severe weather outbreaks now. Maybe a color code, like green (no severe weather), yellow (severe storms are possible), orange (a significant outbreak of severe weather is likely), and red (multiple long track, damaging tornadoes are expected). People tend to understand color schemes much better, and they also tend to remember them more easily. It works nicely with air quality forecasts.
Hopefully these kind of ideas will get some traction and some positive changes can be made in the watch/warning process in the coming years....
It is easy to sit here in a TV weather office and be critical; here are some suggestions:
Like I wrote here yesterday, I think a “tornado emergency” messages needs to be formalized. Used only when a tornado is down and has caused damage. This is NOT to replace tornado warnings, but simply to add urgency when there is an immediate known threat to human life. Many NWS offices and TV stations use the term “tornado emergency” in such a situation; I think it needs to be included in the official warning list. We used the term "tornado emergency" during events like the Tuscaloosa F4 tornado on December 16, 2000, and the long track tornadoes across north Alabama on November 10, 2002.
I think the bar needs to be raised on severe thunderstorm criteria. Few people pay attention to severe thunderstorm warnings now with current criteria (58 mph winds or greater, or hail 3/4" in diameter or larger). I suggest defining a severe storm as one that has winds of 65 mph or higher, or hail 1” in diameter or larger. This will cut back on the number of warnings, and hopefully lead to better public awareness of their importance.
I also suggest we junk the “slight, moderate, and high” risk levels as defined by the Storm Prediction Center. When people hear “slight”, most folks think there is little chance of severe weather. That is actually the standard term used prior to most severe weather outbreaks now. Maybe a color code, like green (no severe weather), yellow (severe storms are possible), orange (a significant outbreak of severe weather is likely), and red (multiple long track, damaging tornadoes are expected). People tend to understand color schemes much better, and they also tend to remember them more easily. It works nicely with air quality forecasts.
Hopefully these kind of ideas will get some traction and some positive changes can be made in the watch/warning process in the coming years....
on April 27, 2005, 8:28 pm
Reply to this comment