[EAS] concerning the request for new weather Event Codes

Sat Jul 9 10:46:33 CDT 2016

Alex,

I appreciate your's and the professional staff at the NWS's efforts in
advancing the critical function of short fuse warnings and balancing the
various factors in warning creation and issuance.

Yes, each region has it's own various unique conditions which require
consideration when crafting a standard under which all warnings are
issued. It is certainly a balancing act. As is also dealing with counties
which are larger than some states.

Let me focus on one specific scenario which repeatedly occurs and widely
experience here in the Midwest: Squall Line, Bow Echo, and Derecho related
SVR's. These account for the lion share of warnings issued between the
Rockies and Atlantic coast. (Discrete/popcorn (super)cells are an entirely
different animal and require different assessment which I don't wish to
include in this thread. Same with TOR and FFW's.)

The current system (as I understand it) defines a multi-sided polygon
warning area based on the severe cell (or line) projected direction of
travel and distance movement within what would be a projected warning
duration of 30 or 45 minutes. Fair enough.

However, many times an automated warning polygon will include a limited
entering/first portion of a given county (or counties) under the standard
projected time duration. Therein lay the primary underlying factor in
message flooding.

It commonly occurs a cell (or line) remains severe as it traverses over
that entire county (or counties). Thus, two (or more) unique warnings and
associated (automated) polygons are then incrementally issued for same
cell(line) covering a county or county clusters having already been
recently issued same product warnings.

This is especially annoying if one is in an areas where the activity has
long passed, but their programmed radios continue to alert on a whole
county.

With the above said, I can tell when a forecaster trims out/excludes a
county with limited/diminimus area for the above reason and thus leaves
that down stream county (or county cluster) for a more comprehensive
subsequent warning. I very much appreciate that rather deliberate and
conscious act by the forecaster issuing the warning.

My suggestion to cut down on the sheer volume of warnings is rather
simple...employ that discretionary trimming or extension practice more
widely. If a county is expected to be impacted across it's entire breadth
by a cell or line, simply issue a single warning for the entire expected
path in a given county (or cluster of counties) once. Not incrementally as
is the case now driven entirely on  a pre-set warning duration from a
given "present" time. Even if it means extending the duration of a given
warning by some amount to say 60 minutes and outlining expected times of
arrival elsewhere.

SVS's can be used to notify the public of  revised arrival times and/or
warning cancellation in areas already having seen the warned event pass.
Such is also usually self-evident...but not always.  Like at night.

The above comments are based on some 35 years as a field spotter,
RACES/ARES, then moving into the WFO as a net control station along with
being an associate member of the local AMS chapter. The demanding task of
issuing accurate warnings is not lost on me...even with the advance tools
available.

Additionally, this is a good group to poll when it comes to product
dissemination. There is a broad cross section of broadcasters and related
professionals.

Cheers...

Mike McCarthy
Director of Engineering
Newsweb Radio
WCPT AM/FM, et al.
Chicago

On Thu, July 7, 2016 12:27 pm, Alexander Tardy - NOAA Federal wrote:
> Good discussions that should continue in each region.
>
> There are strong concerns of "messaging flooding" but there also is not a
> clear understanding of the actual "storms". Many in the NWS are trying to
> seek new improved solutions for an old limited EAS system. Unfortunately,
> it is not just a matter or the same "storm" going from one location to the
> next. The last thing we want to do is message flood and overwarn so that
> the public we are serving are not taking proper action to avoid the
> dangers. Each major event there are often extensive surveys of the public
> and officials to document how effective the warning or watch messages are
> (the meteorology and the warning itself). With 122 weather forecast
> offices there is definitely one nearby to voice local concerns about
> broadcasting needs and requirements.
>
> Thunderstorm 'Watches' are issued for large areas such as half of a
> state. They are issued in advance, up to 12 hours. The 'warning' message
> is designed to be imminent danger for a much smaller location (defined
> polygon) and to take action (shelter) or avoid flooded roads while
> travelling. There may be better methods but as of today the short duration
> warning message that goes to the Wireless Emergency Alert may be your
> only notification that you are driving into a washed out road, that a wall
> of water is coming down the mountain while it is sunny, or that a tornado
> is a few blocks from your house versus just a strong thunderstorm.
>
> If one "warning" was issued for an entire medium to large county valid
> for 5 hours (the window of daily thunderstorms) would that be effective?
> This has
> been suggested but likely will not  meet anyone's mission.
>
> It is not uncommon to have 2-7 different (separate) thunderstorms and are
> impacting individual events in a large county and busy summer day. All of
> these "events" are likely occurring at a different time of the day.
> Entirely different scenario would be a winter storm.
>
> The other issue is that out West the storms have very little movement
> (summer monsoon) so they do not travel from one area to another. Rather
> they live for 1 to 2 hours (move little) and an entirely new storm
> (cloud) may form nearby or tens of miles away in another location.
> MIdwest and Eastern US thunderstorm events can often move rapidly (30-70
> mph), cover much more square miles (larger and organized versus sporadic)
> which results in the same "storm" having additional new "warnings" issued
> downstream over a large swath of land (many counties). The only way to
> visualize what is actually occurring is on a map and not a daily series of
> text product messages. Out West it looks like pepperoni on the pizza, and
> scientifically it is quite random though thunderstorms tend to favor high
> deserts, mountains and valley convergencing areas (similar to how high
> wind favors areas used for wind farms).
>
> Try these links in real-time or in past viewing mode for any location in
> the US.
>
> https://nwschat.weather.gov/live or view old events at
> https://nwschat.weather.gov/vtec (substitute vtec with lsr) or follow
> your local weather.gov page as suggested.
>
> One thing for sure is that efforts are made to validate every "storm"
> whether it be on the radar (proactive before it hits the ground as rain,
> flood or wind), using social media, emergency management and the public,
> and 'following' the storm in a survey. The lead time before damaging
> impact has increased since the warnings are often a forecast/prediction
> (not just a reaction to a report) but this can also lead to false alarms.
> NWS needs the broadcasters as a voice of the life and property
> saving messaging.
>
> Alex Tardy
> Warning Coordination Meteorologist, Manager
> Emergency Preparedness and Partner Collaboration
> Education and Outreach Coordinator
> Media and Public Information Officer
> Cell: 858-442-6016  Office: 858-675-8700
> Skywarn Program Manager
> NOAA/National Weather Service
> 11440 W. Bernardo Court, SanDiego, CA
> weather.gov/sandiego
>
> Register_as_a_Weather-Ready_Nation_Ambassador (click here)
> Facebook page for NWS San Diego
> Twitter @NWSSanDiego
> http://www.youtube.com/NWSSanDiego YouTube
> We need precipitation reports! http://cocorahs.org/
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Mike McCarthy <towers at mre.com> wrote:
>
>> They still issues both watches. Awareness of the watches has never been
>>  greater...which is a good thing.
>
>> Message flooding of warnings is the problem which there needs to be a
>> balance. The root problem is the use of timed polygons. It is not
>> uncommon for the same county to have multiple warnings for the same
>> storm simply because the projected polygon time doesn't cover a whole
>> county.
>
>> Particularly on SVR's and FFW's which are broad swath warnings covering
>>  only a portion of a given county. If a whole county is going to be
>> impacted, then issue the warning for the whole county once. No two...or
>>  even three times.
>
>> Or in the case of tornadoes, multiple spotted and/or radar indicated
>> tornadoes are warned in different parts of the county and/or times.  A
>> couple years ago, Kankakee County here had 4 concurrent TOR's in
>> progress in a county less than 750 square miles.  That evening saw one
>> of our stations issue 6 TOR's in a span of only a couple hours and
>> upwards of 10 the whole event.
>
>> MM