By BILL DRAPER
Associated Press
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Even expert storm chases would have struggled to decipher the difference between the tornado warnings sent last May before severe weather hit Joplin and, a few days later, headed again toward downtown Kansas City.
The first tornado was a massive EF-5 twister that killed 161 people as it wiped out a huge chunk of the southwest Missouri community. The second storm caused only minor damage when two weak tornadoes struck in the Kansas City suburbs.
In both cases, the warnings were harbingers of touchdowns. But three out of every four times the National Weather Service issues a formal tornado warning, there isn't one. The result is a "cry wolf" phenomenon that's dulled the effectiveness of tornado warnings, and one the weather service hopes to solve with what amounts to a scare tactic.
In a test that starts Monday, five weather service offices in Kansas and Missouri will use words such as "mass devastation," "unsurvivable" and "catastrophic" in a new kind of warning that's based on the severity of a storm's expected impact. The goal is to more effectively communicate the dangers of an approaching storm so people understand the risks they're about to face.
"We'd like to think that as soon as we say there is a tornado warning, everyone would run to the basement," said Ken Harding, a weather service official in Kansas City. "That's not how it is. They will channel flip, look out the window or call neighbors. A lot of times people don't react until they see it."
The system being tested will create two tiers of warnings for thunderstorms and three tiers for tornadoes, each based on severity. A research team in North Carolina will analyze the results of the experiment, which runs through late fall, and help the weather service decide whether to expand the new warnings to other parts of the country.
Laura Myer, a social science research professor at Mississippi State University, said people she has interviewed want more advance warning about a potential tornado strike and more information on the specific locations where the storms are expected to hit.
"We have found in Mississippi and Alabama and various other Southern states that people feel they would constantly be going to a shelter if they heeded every tornado warning," she said. "For people in mobile homes, that's the craziest thing.
"To get to a shelter, they have to leave home," she said. "They feel like if they left during every watch or warning, they would be on the road all the time."
The primary audiences for weather service's written bulletins are broadcasters who issue warnings on the air and emergency management agencies that activate sirens and respond to the storm's aftermath. In the event of a Joplin-like tornado, the new-look warning would have an urgency hard to ignore.
Andy Bailey, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service office in Pleasant Hill, Mo., said it might look something like this: "THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TORNADO WITH COMPLETE DEVASTATION LIKELY. ... SEEK SHELTER NOW! ... MOBILE HOMES AND OUTBUILDINGS WILL OFFER NO SHELTER FROM THIS TORNADO - ABANDON THEM IMMEDIATELY."
Had such a warning come across his television set on May 22, Joplin resident Jeff Lehr said he might have sought shelter. Instead, it wasn't until a siren distracted him from a sporting event he was watching on TV that he looked out a window and saw what appeared to be dark thunderstorm clouds.
Even then, he didn't take cover until the windows began imploding in his apartment.
"After hundreds of times of similar thunderstorms approaching Joplin, many of those with tornado warnings attached, and you see them pass ... after all those storms, you kind of get jaundiced about the warnings and tend not to give them the weight you probably should give them," said Lehr, a reporter at The Joplin Globe.
James Spann, chief meteorologist with WBMA-TV in Birmingham, Ala., said the impact-based warning experiment could provide broadcasters and emergency management agencies with a useful tool in an age when a majority of people still wait for an outdated technology - tornado sirens - to seek shelter.
He blames the siren mentality and high number of false alarms for the complacency of people living in tornado-prone areas such as Alabama, where 252 people were killed last April 27 in a tornado outbreak that struck communities across the South.
"A lot of politicians and people who don't understand tornadoes try to jump into this," Spann said. "Their first reaction is, 'We've got to get more sirens.' What are these people thinking? They clearly do not understand the issue."
Sauce.
Associated Press
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Even expert storm chases would have struggled to decipher the difference between the tornado warnings sent last May before severe weather hit Joplin and, a few days later, headed again toward downtown Kansas City.
The first tornado was a massive EF-5 twister that killed 161 people as it wiped out a huge chunk of the southwest Missouri community. The second storm caused only minor damage when two weak tornadoes struck in the Kansas City suburbs.
In both cases, the warnings were harbingers of touchdowns. But three out of every four times the National Weather Service issues a formal tornado warning, there isn't one. The result is a "cry wolf" phenomenon that's dulled the effectiveness of tornado warnings, and one the weather service hopes to solve with what amounts to a scare tactic.
In a test that starts Monday, five weather service offices in Kansas and Missouri will use words such as "mass devastation," "unsurvivable" and "catastrophic" in a new kind of warning that's based on the severity of a storm's expected impact. The goal is to more effectively communicate the dangers of an approaching storm so people understand the risks they're about to face.
"We'd like to think that as soon as we say there is a tornado warning, everyone would run to the basement," said Ken Harding, a weather service official in Kansas City. "That's not how it is. They will channel flip, look out the window or call neighbors. A lot of times people don't react until they see it."
The system being tested will create two tiers of warnings for thunderstorms and three tiers for tornadoes, each based on severity. A research team in North Carolina will analyze the results of the experiment, which runs through late fall, and help the weather service decide whether to expand the new warnings to other parts of the country.
Laura Myer, a social science research professor at Mississippi State University, said people she has interviewed want more advance warning about a potential tornado strike and more information on the specific locations where the storms are expected to hit.
"We have found in Mississippi and Alabama and various other Southern states that people feel they would constantly be going to a shelter if they heeded every tornado warning," she said. "For people in mobile homes, that's the craziest thing.
"To get to a shelter, they have to leave home," she said. "They feel like if they left during every watch or warning, they would be on the road all the time."
The primary audiences for weather service's written bulletins are broadcasters who issue warnings on the air and emergency management agencies that activate sirens and respond to the storm's aftermath. In the event of a Joplin-like tornado, the new-look warning would have an urgency hard to ignore.
Andy Bailey, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service office in Pleasant Hill, Mo., said it might look something like this: "THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TORNADO WITH COMPLETE DEVASTATION LIKELY. ... SEEK SHELTER NOW! ... MOBILE HOMES AND OUTBUILDINGS WILL OFFER NO SHELTER FROM THIS TORNADO - ABANDON THEM IMMEDIATELY."
Had such a warning come across his television set on May 22, Joplin resident Jeff Lehr said he might have sought shelter. Instead, it wasn't until a siren distracted him from a sporting event he was watching on TV that he looked out a window and saw what appeared to be dark thunderstorm clouds.
Even then, he didn't take cover until the windows began imploding in his apartment.
"After hundreds of times of similar thunderstorms approaching Joplin, many of those with tornado warnings attached, and you see them pass ... after all those storms, you kind of get jaundiced about the warnings and tend not to give them the weight you probably should give them," said Lehr, a reporter at The Joplin Globe.
James Spann, chief meteorologist with WBMA-TV in Birmingham, Ala., said the impact-based warning experiment could provide broadcasters and emergency management agencies with a useful tool in an age when a majority of people still wait for an outdated technology - tornado sirens - to seek shelter.
He blames the siren mentality and high number of false alarms for the complacency of people living in tornado-prone areas such as Alabama, where 252 people were killed last April 27 in a tornado outbreak that struck communities across the South.
"A lot of politicians and people who don't understand tornadoes try to jump into this," Spann said. "Their first reaction is, 'We've got to get more sirens.' What are these people thinking? They clearly do not understand the issue."
Sauce.
In both cases, the warnings were harbingers of touchdowns. But three out of every four times the National Weather Service issues a formal tornado warning, there isn't one. The result is a "cry wolf" phenomenon that's dulled the effectiveness of tornado warnings, and one the weather service hopes to solve with what amounts to a scare tactic.
This article seems to imply that the KCMO storm wasn't so serious? The problem is that the difference between a Catastrophe and just a couple hits can't be predicted, can it?
When that huge wall cloud rolled into KCMO last year- the locals were alerted not only by the HUGE news alerts and live updates—there were police cars going up and down out streets outside my office telling people how bad it was and to get their ass inside. My GF was south of town watching the news tell her there was a wall cloud passing over our house. Her sister was on the highway right under that front and she pulled off the road at a nearby school- but she didn't take cover until someone walking by told her to get her ass inside.</i> Meanwhile I was standing at the window of my office in midtown watching all of it roll in because - I'm stupid that way. It all seemed pretty damned serious. Most of the people I knew were getting into basements, or hiding in the bath tub with their dog and some pillows. That said, I'd say the reaction was more about the recent tornado in Joplin than the severity of the news alerts.
I grew up in Oklahoma and I know all about the "cry wolf" thing because they're right. Every time there's a hint of a possibility of a tornado the news and weather stations are ALL OVER IT. They break into your shows to tell you there's a thunderstorm outside. No kidding. It's gets a little dull. But you can't tell me that the local news doesn't lean on this a little bit because any times there is bad weather, people are more likely to tune it and watch their stations. I wouldn't be surprised to learn they have a huge spike in ratings during bad weather. Tell me they don't exploit that a little.
It will be interesting to see if the news producers reign in their own descriptions or will they soon be calling everything "Catastrophic".
And you bring up a good point: the stations absolutely exploit it.
those storms, you kind of get jaundiced about the warnings
*cough*
except I more often don't hear them because our downstairs is so freaking sound proof.
I probably don't take them as serious as I should. I've lived outside of Kansas City for all of my life (39 years). I have never actually seen a tornado. Yes, I realize it only takes one to kill me. I am respectful of the weather, as I think most people are in this part of the country. I do like to watch the weather, but I am not stupid about it.
I find that public places take it much more seriously. I have been in more take shelter situations while at work and school than at home.
Honestly I think we might see some kind of improvement as tablets catch on---I suspect that people might be more willing to seek shelter if it doesn't mean sitting someplace boring for awhile.
Right, has there ever been a tornado that's killed everyone?
Plus you know that somewhere in the projected cone of destruction, there's going to be at least someone that hears that and goes "Aha! A challenge!"
Not to mention all the people who figure they're just overcompensating.
That said, definitely a sort of "Big Kahuna warning," possibly with detailed short-term location projections ("tornado within five miles of [town]" or "tornado-producing storm center currently over [town] with high likelihood to produce tornadoes; seek cover immediately.")
I just took a Skywarn class up here in Minnesota, and they focused quite a bit on the area of the storm that produces the tornadoes and also on where to position yourself relative to them for the safest spot to observe them from (there's a reason why in practically every storm photo you see, the storm's path is moving from left to right). The danger zones to watch out for are often quite small, and very mobile, so it would be reasonably do-able to pull up a map with towns labeled, stick the radar over it, and have someone watch the hot spots and provide detailed warnings for when one of the major danger zones crosses a population center. Not to mention make use of their storm chasers and have some detailed "tornado on the ground, up-storm-path of [town]."
It won't, of course, catch every tornado---but it will, hopefully, keep the ones it does catch from having a bigger pool of careless victims.
I never disregard the siren because even though a tornado hasn't hit my area in the past, that doesn't mean that this time isn't the time it does.
I wish we would have had a siren. Instead we got to watch footage from Andover of the police begging people to take shelter while they walked their dogs.
I have to agree with you (and hello, fellow Kansan!), but I really wish they wouldn't throw out an alert every time the slightest hook echo pops up on the Doppler radar....
*edited out comment on new level when I re-read the article talking about new levels-duh!
Edited at 2012-04-02 06:02 pm (UTC)
I'm incredibly anxious about tornadoes having had one pass down my street as a small child. My anxiety heightened to an all time high last spring my city (not too far from the Lowes store destroyed in NC) had a tornado rip through and a majority of the people I know in town did not take the warning seriously. Some were even on the road in their cars when the twister came through in the immediate area they had been driving in. My family had been scheduled to go to an Easter egg hunt that got cancelled on account of the storm and we made sure we had prepared our shelter area with necessary supplies and distractions for our young daughter by the time the storm arrived. If this big Easter egg had been cancelled, it was obvious something nasty might be heading our way. We have no storm sirens here, something I really hate, so better safe than sorry I figured. A tornado wound up passing less than 1/4 mile from our house. We were okay, as was our house, but there was a fair deal of damage in our neighborhood. No major injuries or deaths in our city thankfully.
Since that day we've taken shelter for every warning and stayed close to home & shelter during watches. I've packed 72 hour packs for my family--people and pets-- and have set up a closet for easy access to our supplies in the event of a storm. We were fortunate last time but the next time a tornado (or whatever) strikes we may not be so lucky. Having a child who depends on me for her safety and well-being makes it all the more important to err on the side of caution I think, as a basic responsibility of parenthood. All the more important in area without sirens and where we must rely on the storm radio, weather report, and our own instincts for making the right call.
And, of course, the tornado touched down for five seconds on somebody's farm and dug up a big hole in their field... and that was it.
I think it would be a good idea for the NWS to standardize what receives what level of warning. Except, maybe, given how unpredictable weather is, that could lead to false complacency? IDK.
Then lived in other places, then Kansas and Missouri again and in all that time (up until today) only went 'to the basement' once. Because the storm cell with swirling fingers and whatnot was *right above our third floor apartment*, so we figured going to the subterranean laundry area might be a good idea.
Now, in our stone house with basement, we mostly only worry about the cars being pelted with hail and stay up top. The SO tracks all the weather from his Lair. Complacent, perhaps, but it's just...how you get.
In Alaska, we get a lot of earthquakes. I admit I've grown complacent and sort of just sit there when I feel an earthquake. Sometimes I do get under my desk at work and then feel stupid because nobody else does.
But you don't get any warnings for earthquakes.
To be honest I'm not sure how changing the text of warnings is going to do any good, though -- it might provide a level of novelty after a while, but eventually people will just get used to/complacent about them too.