On Tuesday, 6/21, the Chicago Metro Area got run over by a very healthy line of storms. Numerous trees were downed and damage occurred with numerous reports of 70mph winds and, while it can be debated scientifically, two reports of small tornadoes embedded within this area of damage.
I am not privy to much of the debate that has gone on about this as I once was, but I have heard enough through the grapevine to know what some of the discussion is. I *am* privy to many scientist's opinions of this event as well as prior discussion about these type of events. More importantly, because this is my blog, I have my own experience and knowledge to draw upon and will give my opinion. I have seen how these events are handled elsewhere and I have seen this event in the field countless times.
Here are what could be discussed
- Tornado or Severe Thunderstorm warning
- ""blanket warning" -- in which you just tornado warn the entire line and tell everyone in the path of a large line that anyone could get a tornado. Basically, about 4 million people went under a tornado warning on this day.
- Sirens
- Problems with urban storm damage surveys done quickly, with straight line wind damage around while cleanup is going on...and done by the people that put out the warning, hence verifying their own work.
- Spotter reports, sheriff reports, "Naper-nadoes"
I'm not going to get into all of that but thought I would list that to explain what all could be debated and what goes through the minds of meteorologists during the warning process.
My position is this, I'm 100% positive that the long lead time and blanket tornado warning was the wrong thing to do. I see no use in warning multiple millions of people for that length of time for what amounts to the chances of misocyclones/small tornadoes when strong and very damaging winds were, by far, going to be the dominant mode of severe. Even if the two tornadoes were legit, and for the sake of argument I will just fully believe they were surveyed correctly and with an unbiased eye so will believe in full that there were two tornadoes, I still see no use in the massive tornado warning. Now, if a tornado warning could have been done for concentrated area that the tornadoes would have effected, sure, than that is the way to go. But I find it lazy lazy lazy meteorology to just say "tornadoes could form anywhere along this very big line of storms so warn everyone".
That isn't a warning, that is a small-scale tornado watch. That is telling people "I don't know where, but conditions are favorable for the formation of small tornadoes so watch out, it could happen". That isn't a warning. It just isn't. What FOR SURE was going to happen was a large area was going to get hit by winds near hurricane force. Warning for that wind damage was the proper meteorology! The FAR (False Alarm Rate -- or "crying wolf") problem is out of hand. And, I do know how much different this is handled in the Plains and I am lucky enough to write a few emails/private messages to those in the know for opinions that confirm my beliefs of this event.
Now, the argument is this for the tornado warning, I'm sure. It would be impossible to warn fast enough for small tornadoes that spin up and people don't respond to severe thunderstorm warnings. I don't care about the former because small scale tornadoes in that situation are only going to make the damage a little worse and people should take cover from the severe thunderstorm warning, anyway, so why would it matter if small spin-ups happen? Air spins! I'm not convinced these rotations were truly from cloud base to ground tornadic circulations. I could cite a few sources on this but I don't feel like it. I'm blogging, not writing a paper. :)
But Matt, if people don't respond to the severe warning then they wouldn't have taken cover!
- Who's fault is it if you put out a severe warning and the person warned doesn't take cover?
- If we always issue tornado warnings to get people to respond, we are the one's confirming their belief. We have basically told them "when it is bad, you will get a tornado warning. When it is a minor severe threat, it will be a severe thunderstorm warning". We have reaffirmed their belief system!
#2 is my main problem! Tornado warnings were issued and people took it seriously, They did. That worked. The short term benefit was correct. But at what cost? Now the next time a severe event happens, do you have to issue a tornado warning again to get people to take cover??? Why even have the severe thunderstorm warning then? If a severe warn had been issued with all that damage, ohhhh baby to be able to show people that they should take severe warnings seriously. An action statement of "small scale tornadoes are often possible in strong wind events" could be added, I suppose.
We need to educate people to let them know that air moving at a high velocity, regardless if it spins around a central axis or not, does damage. Take either warning seriously and don't ask questions. If people took severe thunderstorms seriously and would take cover, there would have been no reason to worry about issuing the tornado warning. Even knowing that a misocyclone/small tornado might form, one could say "well the big story is the winds and the word is out so people should take cover, anyway" would alleviate the pressure to the warning forecaster.
The public will follow the lead of the weather experts!
The other problem is that when you issue the tornado warning, all the people with little, if any, training, start reacting badly. Cities hit the siren buttons way too early or way to many times. Sheriffs see tornadoes that aren't there (also creating siren-panic.) Spotters around the Chicago area, that have very very very very little experience seeing storms are now going to "see" funnels. You have told them they are there, so they will see them. For sure, 99.99999999999999% of what they see are just turbulent cloud motions and shelfy stuff.
And about the long lead time. I had 2 storms come through in between the time of the warning and the arrival of the main bad boy. Heck, on radar, the entire system was morphing/changing. Imagine if you are the general public. You go to the basement, hear a storm come and go and think "ahh, it's over". Go upstairs and then the main storm comes in..the one that is warned for? One should be warned for the storm that matters for instant reaction. "It's knocking on your door!" Watches and statements (and warnings in counties "upstream") should be enough to get the people prepared. (Again, if they don't ..well .. at some point there is some personal responsibility to be discussed here!)
When you are in the "inside" it is easy to rationalize, to justify. But now that I'm more on the "outside" I have come to realize how confusing it is for the general public. They don't understand the sirens and why they are issues or who issues them. They don't understand warnings or all the terminology. They just know that they were told "tornado", waited 30 to 45 minutes, got really windy and scary, then bye. Now they know..oooh..all those winds must be tornadic..b/c that is what the warning told me. And worse, most of the damage that was reported will now be associated with a "tornadic system". I would bet most people think the damage that did occur was because of tornadoes, not damaging winds. A lesson that could have been taught, was lost. Yet again, tornado=bad, severe=not so bad.
They were taught the wrong lesson. Now, the next time 75mph winds are possible, can you risk a severe thunderstorm warning?
And if we are going to issue a tornado warning for every possible spin-up .. well .. good luck. I see no way to ever issue a severe thunderstorm warning that would be worth anything. We might as well get rid of them.
I should add -- I understand how difficult this was for the warning meteorologist. When you are under the gun, in the 3rd biggest city in the US (29th in the world), with a massive media presence, that in all reality doesn't get that much severe weather, and have to decide in a moment's notice what to do -- you are likely to do safest thing possible at that moment. I get that. And I know the person that did it and he is a fine forecaster/warning met/nowcaster, etc.
One thing, for sure, that would be nice, would be to get rid of the current warning system in favor of a probabilistic type warning. And secondly, lets do some research on what people respond to, what they believe, etc. Know our audience! We are all guessing! When we figure out what people know/don't know, we can educate more effectively (cost effectively, too) and then when warnings are issued, they are done with the understanding of what your audience will know/not know.
The good thing is, if there is a debate, that is healthy! I'm sure that many people within the debate care deeply about this issue. Butting heads and arguing can lead to improvements. It is a complex issue. I could go on and on about why NWS forecasters have to be experts in every possible weather event, as well as be emergency managers, almost. I could vent about how spotters are terribly trained and probably do more harm than good. I could argue ...well..I could argue a lot of things, but I'm tired of typing. :)
I just hope the next crop of students ..the one's who can think outside the box, who can think of things differently, can lead the charge into the next generation. With dual pole and phased array radars, more research, more technology, etc, they will have to ignore much of what us old guard thinks about things. Take what is taught to you and then create a meteorological revolution. Do it differently and do it better!
That is all :)
"Powers"
