'UNSURVIVABLE!' - New tornado warnings aim to scare
In this April 27, 2011, file photo a deadly tornado moves through Tuscaloosa, Ala. The National Weather Service is kicking off an experiment starting April 2, 2012 with a new kind of tornado warning that's aimed to scare people into seeking shelter. Photo by The Associated Press.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — 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."


Comments
mmhh 1 year, 2 months ago
I don't like the term "outdated" for the sirens. I have two young children at home and there are often no electronics on in the background. The sirens are my only warning. We never hesitate to go in the basement when we hear them. That is a family rule and it is something I tell my babysitters as well. They know not to even hesitate to grab our sleeping baby out of her crib and head down. It is just common sense.
John 1 year, 2 months ago
The "sirens" to which you and others refer are NOT MEANT TO BE HEARD INDOORS. If you rely upon them for a warning to be heard inside your home you and your family are in danger of dying. Get a NWS alert radio. Any noise within your home can mask the sirens, your dishwasher, washing machine, garbage disposal, vacuum cleaner, TV, etc.
JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago
Scaring and sensationalizing the citizenry is not going to work. It is too easy for anyone to watch local television, weather channel, or go online or use a cell phone to see exactly where the storm is. Most if the times the siirens are activated there is no threat nearby. Educating and empowering citizens would make more sense instead of ringing bells and sounding sirens to try to scare the hell out if them. Rational decisions inbstead of panic would
John 1 year, 2 months ago
If you REALLY believe that "Most if the times the siirens are activated there is no threat nearby."[sic], then you are delusional. They are only sounded when the NWS requests it or when reliable and trained eyes on the ground indicate an extreme source of danger.
JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago
It may be nearby at times but moving away -on no reason to freak out.
JCLifer 1 year, 2 months ago
And they wonder why people ignore all these warnings when they scream the "sky is falling in cole county" but you can plainly see that it is in Montgomery County and moving north east.
Trust the incompetent government bureacrat? I'd rather trust my own eyes looking at the weather maps.
Then you have the case where the toronado slams but no warning is issued. How many times has the weather been very rough with high winds, hail, lightning, etc. and there was not even a watch issued for bad weather?
The biggest problem is that they want to SCARE people, not educate them to understand better and make better decisions to protect themselves. Typical government- keep people dumb and helpless.
John 1 year, 2 months ago
The warnings are NOT (only) based upon a tornado having been seen. If the radar indicates a hook echo or bow echo that have other indicative factors of rotating winds or sheer (microbursts or severe downdrafts) the NWS will request activation -- just because there is no tornado is no reason to assume there was no danger. . . . geez people, give it a break.
RobHunterJohnson 1 year, 2 months ago
I saw what happened at the Lake of the Ozarks (Barnett) March of 2006 (F2) They can run the sirens anytime they want to! Rob
gofish 1 year, 2 months ago
Radar cannot "see" that a tornado is on the ground. Radar only sees the rotation in a storm that is likely to produce a tornado. The rotation can be in the clouds or it can be on the ground. It takes damage reports and visual confirmation to be 100% certain that rotation seen on radar is in fact a tornado. However, you don't want the NWS to wait for confirmation before issuing a warning. So, they err on the side of safety and issue the warning whenever rotation is present. Better to be slightly inconvenienced and alive. Completely ignorning a warning is a personal choice to risk your life. That's where Darwin comes in.
online_editor 1 year, 2 months ago
Please keep comments focused on issues. I removed some personal jabs. Try posting your thoughts again without those if you had some issue-oriented points among them. Thanks. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune
dokeus6 1 year, 2 months ago
My original post was not meant as a personal jab. The meaning behind it was if you are ignorant of what severe weather is capable of and you require more education like a school child then something is certainly wrong. We see the violence and destruction that a small f1 tornado causes. The winds it produces which is not much more than what a normal thunderstorm packs can be deadly depending on the structure that you live in.
If you don't want to heed the warnings that the weather professionals are telling you and you get hurt it is no ones' fault but your own.
TraceyT 1 year, 2 months ago
These more "scary" warnings would be very effective, for a little while. Eventually, people will begin to ignore these warnings as well, which is exactly how the man from Joplin described his reaction to the sirens. The real question is, further down the road when people have adjusted to the new system, will we be better off or worse off?
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID