James Spann on tornado warning system.

[Cameron K.]

Found this on facebook thanks to  Mike from Cookeville. I would certainly agree that there needs to be some improvements.
http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=48699

[Charles L.]

I am a huge supporter of making "Tornado Emergency" its own polygon warning. It would have a small cone and would give people a more "real" aspect that something significant is, in fact, coming towards them. The current Tornado Warning polygons are too big and warn too many people, IMO.

I would also change the criteria of the Tor Emergency. Issue it for every confirmed tornado report from a reliable source (storm spotter, TV media, Emergency managers)...not just for tornadoes headed towards populated centers.

It still isn't a perfect scenerio.

With that said, you would have to change the criteria for a Tor Warning too. Make it where a Tor Warning is issued if 1) Doppler Radar indicated rotation, 2) A tornado is probable...and save the "actual" sighted tornado for Tor Emergency.

I wish this system wasn't as complicated and our FAR rates were much lower, but that isn't the case and we have to work with what we got.

I, somewhat, disagree with James Spann about the QLCS Tor Warnings. The problem I see with it is, when you do actually get a tornado report, and damage, from one and you didn't have a Tor Warning on it...the public will start thinking the NWS doesn't know what they are doing and, therefore, may not hed future warnings.

Do I like offices issuing them all along the line? No, that is the main problem I see with QLCS Tor Warnings...but I do not think you should drop issuing Tor Warnings on the QLCS line all together either.

[jmundie]

I am a huge supporter of making "Tornado Emergency" its own polygon warning. It would have a small cone and would give people a more "real" aspect that something significant is, in fact, coming towards them. The current Tornado Warning polygons are too big and warn too many people, IMO.

I would also change the criteria of the Tor Emergency. Issue it for every confirmed tornado report from a reliable source (storm spotter, TV media, Emergency managers)...not just for tornadoes headed towards populated centers.

It still isn't a perfect scenerio.

With that said, you would have to change the criteria for a Tor Warning too. Make it where a Tor Warning is issued if 1) Doppler Radar indicated rotation, 2) A tornado is probable...and save the "actual" sighted tornado for Tor Emergency.

I wish this system wasn't as complicated and our FAR rates were much lower, but that isn't the case and we have to work with what we got.

I, somewhat, disagree with James Spann about the QLCS Tor Warnings. The problem I see with it is, when you do actually get a tornado report, and damage, from one and you didn't have a Tor Warning on it...the public will start thinking the NWS doesn't know what they are doing and, therefore, may not hed future warnings.

Do I like offices issuing them all along the line? No, that is the main problem I see with QLCS Tor Warnings...but I do not think you should drop issuing Tor Warnings on the QLCS line all together either.

Along these same lines - I wish broadcast mets could get a clue about tracking some of these storms. The last couple events, its been obvious to anyone that unless things are moving on a direct trajectory, the broadcast mets storm tracks are entirely useless.

The last outbreak prior to memorial day, the news said storms would reach nashville literally 2 hours before they did. They were clearly moving NNE, but all the tracks from the broadcast mets had an insane east bias.

Storms trained over bellevue for two hours before they got to east nashville.

[StormNine]

Charles I totally agree my only concern is that people won't pay attention to anything but a Tornado Emergency.  In Joplin a big part of the issue was that the city was waiting for confirmation. Since that storm was rain-wrapped confirmation didn't occur until it was too late.  Also you are dealing with several members of the public who won't take cover unless they have 100% or at least 90% confirmation their house will take a hit.  Those people won't take cover for a Doppler Radar indicated line of storms. 

Also during some events we need to figure out a way to make these warning polygons smaller.  Sometimes it is just as bad as when warnings were county based. Unless there is a major supercell outbreak there is no need to have tornado warnings blanket from the northern TN border to the southern TN border.  It sends a wrong message to the public.

[Charles L.]

Charles I totally agree my only concern is that people won't pay attention to anything but a Tornado Emergency.  In Joplin a big part of the issue was that the city was waiting for confirmation. Since that storm was rain-wrapped confirmation didn't occur until it was too late.  Also you are dealing with several members of the public who won't take cover unless they have 100% or at least 90% confirmation their house will take a hit.  Those people won't take cover for a Doppler Radar indicated line of storms. 

Also during some events we need to figure out a way to make these warning polygons smaller.  Sometimes it is just as bad as when warnings were county based. Unless there is a major supercell outbreak there is no need to have tornado warnings blanket from the northern TN border to the southern TN border.  It sends a wrong message to the public.

With the Joplin tornado, the Springfield office did issue a Tor Warning saying a confirmed tornado was headed towards Joplin. I have asked and asked why didn't they issue a Tornado Emergency...but no one has yet to give me a response, so I will ask here. Why did Springfield not issue a Tornado Emergency for Joplin when there was a confirmed tornado heading in their direction? Why did they choose to just keep it a, standard, Tor Warning?

I agree wholeheartedly with the problem with issuing QCLS Tor Warnings all across the line...that is defeating the purprose of Tor Warnings, IMO. If radar shows an area of rotation for a scan or two for a portion of the line, issue a Tor Warning for that specific segment.

[StormNine]

...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.

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.

INTERSTATE 44 BETWEEN MILE MARKERS 0 AND 13 WILL ALSO BE IMPACTED BY
THIS TORNADO.

IN ADDITION TO A TORNADO...THIS STORM IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING LARGE
DAMAGING HAIL UP TO BASEBALL SIZE.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

A TORNADO WATCH REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 900 PM CDT SUNDAY EVENING FOR
SOUTHEAST KANSAS AND SOUTHERN MISSOURI.

&&

Reports starting really coming out at around 5:45pm or 11 minutes after this statement.  The original Tornado Warning was out earlier with reports of a funnel cloud in SE Kansas.  Not sure why there wasn't a Tornado Emergency, maybe the Tornado wasn't as wide and wicked looking as it was once it hit Joplin.

[Kevin]

I don't advocate getting rid of TORs all together in these situations...but I have to agree with James Spann that TOR warnings along QLCSs have gotten completely out of hand in the last couple of years. The NWS is trying to catch every possible EF0 or EF1 along a squall line that may already producing those winds to begin with...and its leading to...in some cases...double the TOR warnings per year at some WFOs...and most problematic...warnings that span an entire linear system. You can clearly see this happening at MEG in the last two years...and this year especially...and I don't hide the fact that I absolutely loathe it...especially when it causes me to have to be agreeing with Dave Brown more times than I would like.

There are cases where QLCS Tornado Warnings are necessary...where intense and persistent circulations develop and stronger or long-lived tornadoes are possible. Locally...as we've discussed...the 1987 W Memphis and 1994 Germantown Tornadoes were from QLCS systems...not supercells. However...trying to keep POD at a high rate to catch every little tornado out there (that wasn't even being surveyed a few years ago) is not worth the sacrifice we're seeing in the FAR. I can't say for sure of course whether its caused complacency in specific events this year...or perhaps will in possible future events...but I've gotten to where I cringe every time a QLCS is moving into this area...because I know what's coming (and that's unnecessary Tornado Warnings). Its just my opinion...but clearly it is being shared by many in the meteorological community...and though they can't comment of course...I imagine many in the NWS feel the same way.

[kailynleto | Nightwolf]

I don't advocate getting rid of TORs all together in these situations...but I have to agree with James Spann that TOR warnings along QLCSs have gotten completely out of hand in the last couple of years. The NWS is trying to catch every possible EF0 or EF1 along a squall line that may already producing those winds to begin with...and its leading to...in some cases...double the TOR warnings per year at some WFOs...and most problematic...warnings that span an entire linear system. You can clearly see this happening at MEG in the last two years...and this year especially...and I don't hide the fact that I absolutely loathe it...especially when it causes me to have to be agreeing with Dave Brown more times than I would like.

There are cases where QLCS Tornado Warnings are necessary...where intense and persistent circulations develop and stronger or long-lived tornadoes are possible. Locally...as we've discussed...the 1987 W Memphis and 1994 Germantown Tornadoes were from QLCS systems...not supercells. However...trying to keep POD at a high rate to catch every little tornado out there (that wasn't even being surveyed a few years ago) is not worth the sacrifice we're seeing in the FAR. I can't say for sure of course whether its caused complacency in specific events this year...or perhaps will in possible future events...but I've gotten to where I cringe every time a QLCS is moving into this area...because I know what's coming (and that's unnecessary Tornado Warnings). Its just my opinion...but clearly it is being shared by many in the meteorological community...and though they can't comment of course...I imagine many in the NWS feel the same way.

I can attest to the sheer annoyance of these blanket TORs.  My friend Diana lives in Camby, Indiana, a community outside of Indianapolis.  I can think of three times when she's told me she's scared of a tornado, and she would refuse to believe me when I told her, "They are just issuing these for no reason."  To date this year, not her county and not a county around her has been hit by a tornado in one of these blanket TORs, as best as my memory can tell.

Issuing TORs during QLCS events is like telling a pregnant woman whose water has broken that she needs to prepare for contractions.  I mean, she obviously knows that she could have contractions at any time, but we know that comes with the territory.  Maybe mention that risk in passing for her and for QLCS tornadoes, and everything will be fine.

[Fred Gossage]

Charles and Steven....

The reason there was no Tornado Emergency for the Joplin tornado is because there was no way to know just how serious the situation REALLY was until the tornado was actually moving into Joplin. Go back and look at the survey information instead of looking at when the warnings were issued guys. This tornado was on the ground for 6 or 7 miles... at most... and most of the track was through downtown Joplin and east, NOT upstream, approaching the city. Look at some of the youtube videos from the chasers that were on it as it was moving into town and at the damage survey information. The Joplin tornado went from a small tornado into a monster wedge in a matter of a few minutes just as it was moving into town. There was absolutely no way to know that a tornado in need of a Tornado Emergency statement was headed toward Joplin... until it was already in the city.

[Fred Gossage]

I don't advocate getting rid of TORs all together in these situations...but I have to agree with James Spann that TOR warnings along QLCSs have gotten completely out of hand in the last couple of years. The NWS is trying to catch every possible EF0 or EF1 along a squall line that may already producing those winds to begin with...and its leading to...in some cases...double the TOR warnings per year at some WFOs...and most problematic...warnings that span an entire linear system. You can clearly see this happening at MEG in the last two years...and this year especially...and I don't hide the fact that I absolutely loathe it...especially when it causes me to have to be agreeing with Dave Brown more times than I would like.

There are cases where QLCS Tornado Warnings are necessary...where intense and persistent circulations develop and stronger or long-lived tornadoes are possible. Locally...as we've discussed...the 1987 W Memphis and 1994 Germantown Tornadoes were from QLCS systems...not supercells. However...trying to keep POD at a high rate to catch every little tornado out there (that wasn't even being surveyed a few years ago) is not worth the sacrifice we're seeing in the FAR. I can't say for sure of course whether its caused complacency in specific events this year...or perhaps will in possible future events...but I've gotten to where I cringe every time a QLCS is moving into this area...because I know what's coming (and that's unnecessary Tornado Warnings). Its just my opinion...but clearly it is being shared by many in the meteorological community...and though they can't comment of course...I imagine many in the NWS feel the same way.

But I really have to wonder if the problem is the actual warnings themselves, or if it's the way the information is being presented to the public. We've talked about this before, actually... In most of the QLCS events that get associated with the blanket tornado warnings, there is often also widespread winds of 65-70+ mph, and in a lot of cases widespread 70-80 mph. These are the type of straight-line winds that start doing the damage that is equivalent to small tornadoes... that would be a direct threat to life and property to people in automobiles and mobile homes, as we have seen too many times this year. These tornado warnings are getting the meteorologists on air to get information out to the public, but even when there's no detectable circulation, the meteorologists still want to try to do fan-type storm tracks with times of arrival... and hyper-local street-level mapping. This just is not the way to go. By doing this, it's causing people elsewhere along the line's path to ignore the situation... while trees and power lines are coming down around them... while the areas most often blanketed by the big tornado warning polygons aren't near the apex of the bow... and if they don't have that small spin-up, often don't have nearly as much damage, if at all. I don't know if it's wise or not to scale back on the tornado warnings.... but I DO think it's a good idea to have the guys on TV during these 70+ mph widespread wind events.... but drop the freaking street labeling and fan tracks.... and go with the squall line tracks. They were included in VIPIR, FasTrac, Titan, and ESP for a reason.

[Kevin]

I agree that the broadcast community has to have some responsibility in accurately portraying to the public the exact nature of the threat regardless of the warning type and areal coverage of specific threats...etc.

I suppose if MEG had gone out after each QLCS event and found a bunch of EF0s and EF1s...like a few offices have done after similar warned-events this year...I wouldn't be so frustrated with this though I still do not think "blanket" warnings are the appropriate way to go about it. But the fact is (and I know this from experience and have said this before)...MEG will not go out and search for tornado tracks post-event in the areas they warn for...they only survey confirmed areas of damage that are believed to be suspect by officials on-scene.

I personally don't have a problem with that method...because its very unlikely you're going to miss anything but the weak...spin-up tornadoes that forces the survey crew to spend an entire day outside on "broken twig patrol" since they're in the middle of nowhere. So...I guess my frustration is...if MEG is not going to effort and try to verify these blanket tornado warnings they've been issuing this year in QLCS events...then why are we seeing them being issued. Its almost like them voluntarily raising the FAR.

I have to hold the belief that you can't issue 18 Tornado Warnings for the biggest population center in your CWA...most within a 3-week period...with not one confirmed tornado...and expect people not to become warning/siren fatigued. Many people already were when the number for every year previous was 50% lower or more than that. I just hope that during the next event if it then becomes something serious...people who would normally take that as such...don't because of what we've seen recently. Its pure speculation...I have no way to know what if any impact it may cause...but its just a fear I have...a fear that's especially raised after seeing what we've seen this year.

[Charles L.]

Charles and Steven....

The reason there was no Tornado Emergency for the Joplin tornado is because there was no way to know just how serious the situation REALLY was until the tornado was actually moving into Joplin. Go back and look at the survey information instead of looking at when the warnings were issued guys. This tornado was on the ground for 6 or 7 miles... at most... and most of the track was through downtown Joplin and east, NOT upstream, approaching the city. Look at some of the youtube videos from the chasers that were on it as it was moving into town and at the damage survey information. The Joplin tornado went from a small tornado into a monster wedge in a matter of a few minutes just as it was moving into town. There was absolutely no way to know that a tornado in need of a Tornado Emergency statement was headed toward Joplin... until it was already in the city.

Still, the warning before the storm hit Joplin said there was a confirmed tornado with it (and was issued 11 minutes before it hit the west side of Joplin). Isn't a Tornado Emergency suppose to be issued if a confirmed tornado is headed towards a populated center? True the most devastating portion of the tornado went through Joplin, Steven and I are well aware of that fact...but the tornado was also on the ground a bit further west of Joplin...but still nowhere near the magnitude when it actually came into the city.

If I am correct, a Tornado Emergency is suppose to be issued for any confirmed tornado headed towards a large population center...this one had a confirmed tornado with it ~11 minutes before it hit Joplin.

[StormNine]

 Some NWS offices issue Tornado Emergency's a little different.  That is one of the pros on the Tornado Emergency being its own product.  I don't think Paducah or Louisville have ever issued a Tornado Emergency and there have been some close calls on some of the population centers in those CWA's.  While Nashville has been known to issue them when they get a report of a tornado heading into a population center. It makes the Tornado Emergency wording a little bit confusing. I used to think that the Tornado Emergency was like the PDS of Tornado Warnings, but I do notice that some NWS offices don't issue them at all while others issue them more often.

On the survey the tornado starts as an EF0 on the SW outskirts of town, but then quickly goes to EF-4 just west of St. Johns and EF-5 over Saint Johns. It is pretty impressive how it goes from EF-0 to EF-5 in a distance of three blocks.

[Fred Gossage]

Still, the warning before the storm hit Joplin said there was a confirmed tornado with it (and was issued 11 minutes before it hit the west side of Joplin). Isn't a Tornado Emergency suppose to be issued if a confirmed tornado is headed towards a populated center? True the most devastating portion of the tornado went through Joplin, Steven and I are well aware of that fact...but the tornado was also on the ground a bit further west of Joplin...but still nowhere near the magnitude when it actually came into the city.

If I am correct, a Tornado Emergency is suppose to be issued for any confirmed tornado headed towards a large population center...this one had a confirmed tornado with it ~11 minutes before it hit Joplin.

NO.... The NWS standard practice is wanting to save a Tornado Emergency for a situation when a confirmed large, damaging tornado is headed for a populated area.... or there is strong radar evidence of a damaging tornado headed for a popuplated area, NOT just when a tornado of any magnitude is approaching a city. The problem with this is.... this isn't a set rule, but is a suggestion in the NWS directives... so not LL offices go by it. But having said that, if SGF was going by the NOAA Directives for the Tornado Emergency, there was no way one could be issued before Joplin was hit... as Steven outlines above... because of the fast nature in which the tornado intensified just as it was heading into the city.

4.3.4 Content
. WFOs should issue SVSs to address the status of severe weather warnings. WFOs will not use SVSs to expand in area or extend the valid time of TORs and SVRs. If the threat of severe weather clears a significant portion of the SVR or TOR during the warning period, forecasters should update the latitude and longitude pairs of the polygon within the warned county or counties.

In exceedingly rare situations, when a severe threat to human life and catastrophic damage from a tornado is imminent or ongoing, the forecaster may insert the headline "...TORNADO EMERGENCY FOR [GEOGRAPHIC AREA]...". Additionally, in such a situation, this headline should only be used when reliable sources confirm a tornado, or there is clear radar evidence of the existence of a damaging tornado (such as, the observation of debris).

http://www.weather.gov/directives/sym/pd01005011curr.pdf  <--- Page 11

...When the wording "Tornado Emergency" was first used by NWS Norman on 5/3/99... it was used as much for getting the attention of emergency managers, first responders, and hospitals with trauma units... as it was expressing the dire nature of the situation to the public.

[Charles L.]

I think that criteria needs to be changed, and even in your own words Fred you said "standard practice" so it isn't a hard rule that it can only be issued if a large tornado is occurring. So I am, technically, not wrong...I just have a different opinion on this matter. This Joplin tornado is a great case in point. When this tornado started out, yeah is was rather weak...but in a matter of minutes it goes from weak to massive...no chance for them to issue a Tornado Emergency then because it was already in Joplin.

I am not saying that by them issuing a Tornado Emergency it would have made a whole lot of difference, but I do think it would have made a difference in a few peoples lives (I am positive St. John's Hopsital would not have waited until 5 minutes before the storm hit for them to go to Code Gray if this had been a Tornado Emergency)...and that is what really counts.

I say issue a Tornado Emergency whenever a confirmed tornado is headed towards a populated location (town/city around or above 20,000 people)...because even a weak tornado could cause loss of life if someone is caught out in it, and the chances for someone to be out in this storms path is greater in a more populated location. And by telling them that a tornado has been confirmed with this storm, through a Tor Emergency, that tells those people that this storm means business and isn't your typical Tornado Warning and they do not need to treat it as such.