CNN, huh?

[John Massura]

Sigh, I'm listening right now to CNN, and a few minutes ago they mentioned a tornado warning for the Port Arthur area. Their "meteorologist" said, on air (paraphrasing now), that warnings in hurricanes aren't for actual tornadoes, they are to just warn people about strong winds. The re-iterated at least twice that the tornado warnings were not for actual tornadoes, just strong winds with the hurricane, because the eyewall area is basically an F1 or F2 tornado anyway.

While I can see their point (nevermind, I can't), what happens two days after landfall when there are actual tornadoes with those tornado warnings?

The media "meteorologists" can really shoot us in the foot sometimes...

 

[Robert Dewey]

Re: CNN, you idiots....

Originally posted by John Massura
Sigh, I'm listening right now to CNN, and a few minutes ago they mentioned a tornado warning for the Port Arthur area. Their \"meteorologist\" said, on air (paraphrasing now), that warnings in hurricanes aren't for actual tornadoes, they are to just warn people about strong winds. The re-iterated at least twice that the tornado warnings were not for actual tornadoes, just strong winds with the hurricane, because the eyewall area is basically an F1 or F2 tornado anyway.

While I can see their point (nevermind, I can't), what happens two days after landfall when there are actual tornadoes with those tornado warnings?

The media \"meteorologists\" can really shoot us in the foot sometimes...

What warning would you suggest replace the TOR warnings?

The point of the TOR is to get people to take cover - though they should already be doing so, and I doubt many of them will get word of this warning.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

It should be noted that there have been some very intense vorticies (tornadoes) within the eyewall, likely associated by the extreme horizontal shear. Romine and Rozoff discussed this a bit in another thread a few days ago.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not CNN's fault. The NWS issued the tornado warning for the eyewall. This is really not that un-common and is to highlight the danger as the eyewall approaches and im also sure there is some reasoning in mini swirls that have been discussed about previously.

 

[Sam Sagnella]

Re: CNN, you idiots....

Originally posted by John Massura
Sigh, I'm listening right now to CNN, and a few minutes ago they mentioned a tornado warning for the Port Arthur area. Their \"meteorologist\" said, on air (paraphrasing now), that warnings in hurricanes aren't for actual tornadoes, they are to just warn people about strong winds. The re-iterated at least twice that the tornado warnings were not for actual tornadoes, just strong winds with the hurricane, because the eyewall area is basically an F1 or F2 tornado anyway.

While I can see their point (nevermind, I can't), what happens two days after landfall when there are actual tornadoes with those tornado warnings?

The media \"meteorologists\" can really shoot us in the foot sometimes...

Maybe they misspoke in saying that all TORs in hurricanes are not due to actual tornadoes, but this is the case for these warnings. It has been (official?) NWS policy to issue tornado warnings as the eyewall of a hurricane approaches, due to the widespread, devastating tornado-like winds (i.e. ~120mph or F2 for Rita) over a large area. IMO, this is a great idea, though, as Rob noted, most will never know this warning was issued.

 

[nickgrillo]

Personally, I don't even see a need for a TOR warning issuance... Due to the fact that others have mentioned, which is - Who is going to hear them?

No use for them, really.

 

[David Schuttler]

St.Charles NWS mentioned about issueing an "Eyewall Warning" when I was listening earlier to an interview

 

[Robert Dewey]

Originally posted by nickgrillo
Personally, I don't even see a need for a TOR warning issuance... Due to the fact that others have mentioned, which is - Who is going to hear them?

No use for them, really.

I may have been wrong, though... Many people who wait it out do in fact have either a NOAA weather radio or a standard battery powered radio. Since the eyewall is a couple hours away, and winds are generally 60-80MPH right now, they should be able to get a warning and estimated time of when to really "hit the deck".

 

[nickgrillo]

Originally posted by rdewey+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rdewey)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-nickgrillo

Personally, I don't even see a need for a TOR warning issuance... Due to the fact that others have mentioned, which is - Who is going to hear them?

No use for them, really.

I may have been wrong, though... Many people who wait it out do in fact have either a NOAA weather radio or a standard battery powered radio. Since the eyewall is a couple hours away, and winds are generally 60-80MPH right now, they should be able to get a warning and estimated time of when to really "hit the deck".[/b]

Well, I'd have to think that they are already "hitting the deck" LOL

If I was the public of that area, I certainly wouldn't be waiting for the eyewall to take shelter. I understand about the NWR... I'm almost sure that everyone who has one must be listening to it right now. Yet, I doubt that a TOR-warning issuance would do much good.

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by nickgrillo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nickgrillo)</div>

Originally posted by rdewey@
<!--QuoteBegin-nickgrillo

Personally, I don't even see a need for a TOR warning issuance... Due to the fact that others have mentioned, which is - Who is going to hear them?

No use for them, really.

I may have been wrong, though... Many people who wait it out do in fact have either a NOAA weather radio or a standard battery powered radio. Since the eyewall is a couple hours away, and winds are generally 60-80MPH right now, they should be able to get a warning and estimated time of when to really "hit the deck".

Well, I'd have to think that they are already "hitting the deck" LOL

If I was the public of that area, I certainly wouldn't be waiting for the eyewall to take shelter. I understand about the NWR... I'm almost sure that everyone who has one must be listening to it right now. Yet, I doubt that a TOR-warning issuance would do much good.[/b]

I think that if it saved one life it would be worth it.

 

[John Massura]

Re: CNN, you idiots....

Originally posted by Sam Sagnella


Maybe they misspoke in saying that all TORs in hurricanes are not due to actual tornadoes, but this is the case for these warnings. It has been (official?) NWS policy to issue tornado warnings as the eyewall of a hurricane approaches, due to the widespread, devastating tornado-like winds (i.e. ~120mph or F2 for Rita) over a large area. IMO, this is a great idea, though, as Rob noted, most will never know this warning was issued.

Fair enough, if this is true. Perhaps that it what they meant. I guess I have a problem with any more opportunities to confuse the public, which I think there has been way too much of recently.

I just went through the tornado warning archive, and there is one "eyewall warning", however there are also 2 bona fide tornado warnings (severe thunderstorm capable of producing a tornado) that would have been valid at the same time (5 now as of this writing). So while in hindsight it may appear they were referring to the eyewall warning, they probably could've worded it a bit differently.

All in all though, I can eat crow if I have to.

 

[Glen Romine]

A quick internet search would probably turn it up - but I think this is the newly accepted protocol for landfalling eyewalls to issue a blanket tornado warning. It was not too long ago some office did it - and it was embraced as a great idea and I think is actually the expected action now.

I don't think it is all that confusing - but if you want - think of the eyewall as a really large, slow-moving tornado.

Glen

 

[Pete]

Interesting wording for these type of warnings. Actually, the first time I encountered one of these was for Hurricane Charley as it headed into the Orlando area. Here is that warning:


WFUS52 KMLB 132250
TORMLB
FLC069-095-097-132345-

BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
TORNADO WARNING
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MELBOURNE FL
645 PM EDT FRI AUG 13 2004

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN MELBOURNE HAS ISSUED A

* TORNADO WARNING FOR...
SOUTHERN LAKE COUNTY
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTHWESTERN OSCEOLA COUNTY
IN EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA

* UNTIL 745 PM EDT

* AT 642 PM EDT...THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HAS ISSUED A TORNADO
WARNING FOR DESTRUCTIVE WINDS OVER 100 MPH AND TORNADOES IN THE
EYE WALL AND INNER RAIN BANDS OF HURRICANE CHARLEY.

* THE LEADING EDGE OF HURRICANE CHARLEYS DESTRUCTIVE WINDS IS
EXPECTED TO MOVE INTO THE KISSIMMEE AND GREATER ORLANDO AREA BY
715 PM.


THE THREAT FOR DAMAGING WINDS AND TORNADOES WILL LAST THROUGH 9 PM
OR LONGER.

PEOPLE IN THE PATH OF THIS ADVANCING STORM ARE URGED TO QUICKLY
PREPARE FOR ITS APPROACH. THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION! ACT NOW.

IF YOU ARE IN THE PATH OF THIS STORM...THE SAFEST PLACE IS IN A
STRONG BUILDING ON THE LOWEST FLOOR. MOVE TO AN INTERIOR ROOM SUCH
AS A BATHROOM OR CLOSET. KEEP AWAY FROM WINDOWS. IF NECESSARY...GET
UNDER A WORKBENCH OR OTHER PIECE OF STURDY FURNITURE. USE BLANKETS
OR PILLOWS TO COVER YOUR BODY. ABANDON YOUR MOBILE HOME OR RV FOR
MORE SUBSTANTIAL SHELTER.

LAT...LON 2792 8210 2779 8140 2856 8117 2868 8189

$$
DD



I think this warning was very useful for three reasons. First, the center of Charley was very compact, and there was no way of knowing exactly where the center was going to hit. Second, the aforementioned embedded tornadoes within an eyewall warranted the issuance of this warning. Third and most importantly, this storm was moving so fast that these destructive winds did not have time to weaken, and therefore unexpectedly made it into the Orlando area just hours after the storm made landfall along the western side of Florida. So for an area of refuge for so many evacuees from the Tampa area along with most Orlando citizens who did not evacute thinking they were safe from the strongest winds, this warning benefitted many. This just goes to show how unpredictable even a very well forcasted hurricane could be.

I do understand people's concern for confusion on the wording of these warnings, and their concern for "overkill" issuance of even more warnings. However, perhaps there are people, assuming they are listening to battery powered radios and watching generator powered tv's, who maybe ventured out momentarily during a lull in winds, who would benefit from knowing when the worst of the winds were coming. So my conclusion from all of this is that you can never overwarn people during such a life threatening situation like this. If, as was mentioned, this warning even saves one life, then it most certainly was worth issuing.

 

[David Dildine]

Nice, all the above... plus...

I just think the NWS gets a rush out of issuing that warning. It must be the highlight of any NWS-warning-met's career. And gratifying. Why not issue it...

Originally posted by Pete
if ... this warning even saves one life, then it most certainly was worth issuing.

 

[Chris Geelhart]

Originally posted by Glen Romine
A quick internet search would probably turn it up - but I think this is the newly accepted protocol for landfalling eyewalls to issue a blanket tornado warning. It was not too long ago some office did it - and it was embraced as a great idea and I think is actually the expected action now.

Found the section of the NWS directives that apply to this.

Directive 10-601, dated 8/31/2005, deals with the tropical cyclone program in the NWS. Section 7.2 contains the following:

7.2 Tornado Warnings (TOR). WFOs should follow policy for the issuance of tornado warnings as per directive 10-511. However, for the 2005 season, the TOR product may be used for the purpose to warn the public to immediately take shelter in an interior portion of a well-built structure due to the onset of extreme tropical cyclone destructive winds. A tornado warning for extreme tropical cyclone destructive winds may be issued when all of the following criteria are met:
• Imminent or occurring onset of tropical cyclone related sustained winds, greater than or equal to 100 knots (115 mph).
• Onset of tropical cyclone related destructive winds are expected to develop or occur within a WFOs county warning area within an hour.

Source: http://mi.nws.noaa.gov/directives/010/pd01006001e.pdf

Chris G.

 

[Greg Stumpf]

Issuing TORs for the eyewalls is the current NWS directive. There is a NOAA committee that is currently reviewing that directive, and most likely, we'll see something like an "Eyewall Warning" starting 2006. I think Roger Edwards ( ) is involved, if he wants to chime in.

 

[rdale]

"Issuing TORs for the eyewalls is the current NWS directive."

Did that come from some sort of study? Do residents get the warning? Do they not hear the 150mph winds blowing outside and know there's trouble?

Just seems like something Joe Manager at HQ came up with...

 

[Jeff Snyder]

I just wonder what purpose an "Eyewall warning" would serve. I mean, assuming we're talking about a major hurricane, the folks in the warning area are very likely to be without power, and I can't imagine NWR's and local radio stations' transmissions (that is, if the transmitters have power) will be heard by folks in the area. If nobody in the area is going to get the warning, why issue it begin with? Again, this assumes that the storm is a major hurricane, since most non-major hurricanes don't have "tornado-like" winds. In addition, all areas where the eyewall of a major hurricane is expected to make landfall should certainly be under a mandatory evacuation, so the folks in those areas shouldn't be there to begin with. Not saying that these people don't deserve to be served by the NWS, but they won't likely be able to get the "eyewall warning" anyway.

I understand the purpose of the warning, and I don't have a problem with warning for areas that are likely to experience "tornado-like" winds. However, it seems to be more academic than practical in terms of illiciting a response from those in the warning area.

 

[Glen Romine]

Originally posted by Jeff Snyder
I just wonder what purpose an \"Eyewall warning\" would serve.

Seems fair to ask. I'm hoping there was a survey after an event that got some responses suggesting it was helpful. About the only thing I can think of is perhaps someone knew the hurricane was coming, chose not to evacuate, but wasn't sure whether they would be in the path of the strongest winds or not. They don't have power - but might have a radio, or NOAA wx radio to get updates on. Maybe a person would otherwise not know for certain if they are experiencing the worst it will get or if they should expect conditions to further deteriorate at their location.

Glen