[EAS] NWS Impact Based Warnings

[Mike McCarthy]

Tim/Adrienne

Two things come to mind.

1) Effectively blunt and concise messages.  NWS is trying that out and I 
frankly concur with the effort to better distinguish the hazard severity 
so the public can react more appropriately. Here's hoping they don't 
leave that bullhorn at 11 for every warning.

2) Warning products are so over used at present they convey little if 
any meaning to the public at large. Message flooding is a work in 
progress and won't be cured this season.  Keep that log going.  Western 
Region folks will need that log to be convinced there is a message 
flooding problem in your area.Only then will they make the messages 
something more relevant than a "holler across the field."

That said, it will take a wholesale change at the national level in the 
manner NWS assesses SVR WX threats.  Not the regional or local level.

MM

On 2/6/2013 10:18 PM, Tim Stoffel wrote:
> Tim--
> As much as I agree with your sentiments, Clay is correct. Most people don't pay attention to warning messages, especially weather warnings
>
> Adrienne,
>      I will respectfully disagree. If people stayed behind, they had likely heard from somewhere or someone that there was danger. So in many cases, I doubt you could have convinced these people to leave, especially in a Sandy-type situation. So, there comes a point when it is futile to try and disseminate emergency messages any further than they are. It is a total waste of our resources as a society to constantly warn people who either won't listen, or have chosen not to heed the warning. This is one of the consequences of freedom. But instead, we spend ever increasing amounts of public money building ever more elaborate emergency information systems. We as a society need to not take on the burden of guilt that arises from not trying to 'protect' those who aren't going to use common sense.
>      This political statement in mind, what can be done to reach the most people as quickly as possible when a REAL emergency exists, within the limits of reason? How do we make sure that really necessary weather alerts do not come across as 'wolf alerts'? We, too get these clusters of severe thunderstorm warnings here in western Nevada. Now, if such an alert could be targeted to just people in the affected region, I bet the alerts would be far more effective. Instead, we get days here where we will get eight severe thunderstorm warnings. (I am recording each and every alert we get, BTW.) Someone watching/listening to our air will see/hear all these alerts, and in many cases start to ignore them after the first couple. Eventually, one will come along that does really affect his area, but by then the TV is off due to annoyance. Another aspect of this is, consider a viewer at home might get an EAS alert on their radio/TV, their NWS receiver will alarm, their cellphone will ring!