Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: TV Meteorologist "Too frequent tornado warnings are causing people to ignore"  (Read 10800 times)
KF9ZA
Member

Posts: 48


WWW

Ignore
« on: June 15, 2011, 06:44:36 AM »

Not exactly a ham story. But lots of us are involved in RACES, ARES and Skywarn. Here's the news story.  I think he raises some interesting questions....

"In the wake of the April 27 tornadoes, veteran Alabama television meteorologist James Spann is questioning whether too frequent tornado warnings are causing people to ignore them."

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/06/james_spann_blasts_number_of_f.html

Plus, here's his original blog post.  I do agree that the day of the warning siren has past.

http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=48699
Logged
W5LZ
Member

Posts: 477




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2011, 06:53:35 AM »

I didn't read the thing, but I agree in general about frequent warnings.  You have to understand how the NWS does it's symbols and warnings.  It IS just a warning, you know?  Things involving 'Momma Nature' can change very quickly if you make 'Her' mad, so you wanna be careful with it.
And then the 'flip-side' is even worse, not giving warnings soon enough.  Oh well...
-Paul
Logged
KF7CG
Member

Posts: 875




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2011, 10:42:36 AM »

In today's litigious society, if you have the power to have possibly detected a severe storm but don't or don't put out a warning you are very likely to be sued for the omission. I remember a few years back when a suit was brought against the NWS for failure to notify shipping of possible strong storms when it was a judgement call and the decided it was probable enough.

As I see it on the warnings, the NWS and the TV stations with weather radar are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. Therefore, if it comes close, warn. Better 80% false warning than even 1% missed warnings.

KF7CG
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6061




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2011, 11:11:54 AM »


As I see it on the warnings, the NWS and the TV stations with weather radar are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. Therefore, if it comes close, warn. Better 80% false warning than even 1% missed warnings.

KF7CG

And there it comes full circle--right back to the statement in the title of the thread.
Logged
KC8OYE
Member

Posts: 297




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2011, 12:32:24 PM »

i would like to see the NWS add a 3rd level to the system...

so you would have WATCH: conditions are favorable
WARNING: There is a POSSIBLE tornado on the ground.
EMERGENCY: there is a confirmed tornado on the ground

i think that would solve the problems..


right now, a warning basically says "there may, or may not, be a tornado on the ground, we just aren't sure.."
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2011, 09:30:05 PM »

The other problem is setting off the warning tone on the weather receivers for every little rainstorm. People are leaving them turned off to avoid the frequent startling noise!  Shocked
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 06:31:52 PM by KI4SDY » Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6692




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2011, 09:42:16 PM »

Actually there is no need for 3 tiers. A "Watch" merely means conditions are favorable while a "Warning" means that a twister has touched down or been sighted.  It is possible that some take watches to be warnings and therefore ignore warnings as watches usually mount to nothing.  We do not need more confusion just better usage and understanding of what we have.
Logged

--------------------------------------
You can embrace new computer/tablet technology and change with it or cling to old fall far behind....
KC8OYE
Member

Posts: 297




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2011, 10:19:46 PM »

here in detroit, they will issue a warning when a storm signature that is likely to produce a tornado.. even if it hasn't actually produced one yet..
Logged
K2CMH
Member

Posts: 278




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2011, 11:15:44 AM »

I agree, there should be three levels.  A warning here means that they see possible rotation on radar but not that an actual tornado has been sighted/verified.  To me there is a huge difference between an actual verified tornado and a 'possible' tornado forming due to cloud rotation.  One is a definite 'seek cover, it is on the way' versus 'we think one might be forming'.  A tornado watch to me is useless, it really tells you nothing that you can act on.  I think it is safe to say that during a bad storm you can assume there is always the possibility for a tornado to form, so what does a watch get you?  Maybe they should issue a watch when cloud rotation is present and issue a warning when they have a verified tornado.
Logged
KC8OYE
Member

Posts: 297




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2011, 01:51:16 PM »

k2cmh... i agree with you there.
Logged
KF9ZA
Member

Posts: 48


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2011, 01:56:30 PM »

Three levels would work for you, me and anyone else who spends time aware of the weather and their surroundings.  But, the general public doesn't think about those things.  With the general public when you communicate to them you must simplify:  black/white, A/B, Tornado/No Tornado.  If you tried to explain the concept of a "possible" tornado that would just add to their confusion.  With the average person you have to keep it simple.
Logged
KC8OYE
Member

Posts: 297




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2011, 05:44:55 PM »

Three levels would work for you, me and anyone else who spends time aware of the weather and their surroundings.  But, the general public doesn't think about those things.  With the general public when you communicate to them you must simplify:  black/white, A/B, Tornado/No Tornado.  If you tried to explain the concept of a "possible" tornado that would just add to their confusion.  With the average person you have to keep it simple.

we need to stop protecting the stupid people.. and let Darwin do his thing...
Logged
KC9UKH
Member

Posts: 15


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2011, 04:49:30 PM »

Three levels would work for you, me and anyone else who spends time aware of the weather and their surroundings.  But, the general public doesn't think about those things.  With the general public when you communicate to them you must simplify:  black/white, A/B, Tornado/No Tornado.  If you tried to explain the concept of a "possible" tornado that would just add to their confusion.  With the average person you have to keep it simple.

we need to stop protecting the stupid people.. and let Darwin do his thing...


Yes, to this.    Grin
Logged

KC9UKH, Scott.
W6RMK
Member

Posts: 672




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2011, 07:16:43 AM »

This has been a topic of discussion in the meteorological community for decades. And in disaster preparedness in general, for that matter, but tornadoes and other severe weather events are sort of prototypical for "low probability in a specific place, moderate probability in general, hard to predict, and grave consequences"

Especially since doppler radar made it possible to see rotation in otherwise obscured conditions (in before radar days, a lot of tornadoes just didn't get seen until too late.. if it was night, or the rain was heavy enough, or it was out in deserted territory with no observers)

So you're faced with the classic "false positive, cry wolf" vs "didn't warn soon enough".

I think they've got a fairly decent balance on it.  In general, fatalities and other casualties from tornadoes and severe storms have been steadily dropping over the past few decades, notwithstanding larger populations and densities.  This year has been a bit worse in terms of number of events and number of casualties, but it's not out of line statistically (i.e. it's one of those 2 or 3 sigma events)

Also, just as with earthquakes (where there is no warning), construction practices have changed to make the events more survivable. As the older inventory of buildings is gradually replaced, that will help too.
Logged
K2CMH
Member

Posts: 278




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2011, 11:41:58 AM »

>With the general public when you communicate to them you must simplify: 
>black/white, A/B, Tornado/No Tornado

....and which is what we do NOT currently have.  There is no signal that says absolutely there is a tornado since a warning can mean either there is one or that there might be one forming due to cloud rotation.

To simplify the system, make a 'watch' mean one might be forming due to rotation...ie, be on the 'watch' for one...a warning means one has definitely formed.  Sounds the sirens for the warning only.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!