This blog has discussed, on many occasions, the danger of losing the electrical power grid through major solar storm or electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. I believe the cumulative threat is higher than airline highjacking for which we spend tens of billions on the TSA.
The director of the National Security Agency has warned that the hacking group Anonymous could have the ability within the next year or two to bring about a limited power outage through a cyberattack.
Gen. Keith Alexander, the director, provided his assessment in meetings at the White House and in other private sessions, according to people familiar with the gatherings. While he hasn’t publicly expressed his concerns about the potential for Anonymous to disrupt power supplies, he has warned publicly about an emerging ability by cyberattackers to disable or even damage computer networks.
Gen. Alexander’s warning signals a growing federal concern over the capabilities of Anonymous, a loose affiliation of so-called hacktivist computer programmers who have launched a raft of high-profile cyberassaults against U.S. government and corporate targets such as Visa Inc., MasterCard Inc. and eBayInc.’s PayPal serviceSo far, the attacks have primarily served to embarrass companies and organizations, and cybersecurity experts differ on the extent of the threat posed by Anonymous.The group has never listed a power blackout as a goal, but some federal officials believe Anonymous is headed in a more disruptive direction. An attack on a network would be consistent with recent public claims and threats by the group. Last week, for instance, Anonymous announced a plan to shut down the Internet on March 31, which it calls Operation Global Blackout
Think about it: We would, literally, be back to 1880 but without the 1880′s infrastructure. Your car would not run after an EMP attack. Do you own a horse? Is there a grain mill run on water flow nearby? How would insulin and other critical medicines be kept cool without electricity?
It is long-past time stop pouring money into the TSA (including a new TSA tax) and start focusing on these more serious threats.
Below, I write about “Fakegate” — the deception involved in a phony scandal involving the Heartland Institute perpetrated by one of the leading pro-global warming scientists. Of course, most of his pro-global warming contemporaries have adopted either the “nothing to see here, move along” or the “fake, but accurate” defenses.
I’ve written all I care to write about this matter, but I do want to quote from Megan McArdle (hardly a global warming skeptic) that I would like the readers of this blog who are pro-global warming to think carefully about her words:
Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?
When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I’d say it is crucial that the other members of the community say “Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!” and not, “Well, he’s apologized and I really think it’s pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that’s so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.”
After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.
Gleick was — get this — chair of the ethics committee of the American Geophysical Union, another pro-GW organization.
Courtesy of WattsUpWithThat, here are parts of an open letter to the new chair of the AGU’s ethics committee written by Willis Eschenbach:
Make no mistake. If Peter Gleick walks away from this debacle free of expulsion, sanction, or censure from the AGU, without suffering any further penalties, your reputation and the reputation of the AGU will forever join his on the cutting room floor. People are already laughing at the spectacle of the chair of a task force on scientific integrity getting caught with his entire arm in the cookie jar. You have one, and only one, chance to stop the laughter.
Because if your Task Force doesn’t have the bal … the scientific integrity to take up the case of its late and unlamented commander as its very first order of business, my Spidey-sense says that it will be forever known as the “AGU Task Farce on Scientific Integrity”. You have a clear integrity case staring you in the face. If you only respond to Dr. Gleick’s reprehensible actions with vague platitudes about “the importance of …”, if the Task Force’s only contribution is mealy-mouthed mumblings about how “we deplore …” and“we are disappointed …”, I assure you that people will continue to point and laugh at that kind of spineless pretense of scientific integrity.
Folks are fed up with climate scientists who lie, cheat, and steal to attack their scientific opponents, and who then walk away without the slightest action being taken by other scientists. As long as there are no repercussions from the scientific community for the kind of things Dr. Gleick has done, mainstream climate scientists will continue to do them. Indeed, Dr. Gleick’s own actions were no doubt greatly encouraged by the fact that you noble scientists were so full of bul … of scientific integrity that you all let the Climategate un-indicted co-conspirators walk away scot-free, without even asking them the important questions, much less getting answers to those major issues.
You have the opportunity to actually take a principled stand here, Dr. Gundersen, and I cannot overemphasize the importance of you doing so. Dr. Gleick’s kind of unethical skullduggery in the name of science has ruined the reputation of the entire field of climate science. The rot of “noble cause corruption” is well advanced in the field, and it will not stop until people just like you quit looking the other way and pretending it doesn’t exist. I had hoped that some kind of repercussions for scientific malfeasance would be one of the outcomes of Climategate, but people just ignored that part. This one you can’t ignore.
I would like to thank Greg Agaki and WIBW Radio today for inviting me to participate in their commodity forum where we discussed issues of importance to agriculture.
Question and Answer Time
Other speakers included U.S. Senator Jerry Moran and Kansas Department of Agriculture Secretary Dale Rodman. Secretary Rodman made an interesting point: That agriculture will have to produce over the next 30 years as much as it produced in the last 10,000!
Multiple flashes fired when Senator Moran took the stage.
Earlier today, genuine climate scientist and IPCC member Dr. Judith Curry wrote on her blog,
Understanding the limits of predictability is the key challenge. The arrogant species [man] is fooling itself if we think we can ‘project’ the state of the climate in 50 years or 100 years, even if we somehow knew what the anthropogenic forcing would be. Yes, it seems that all other things being equal, the climate would be warmer with more CO2, but there is no reason at all to expect all other factors to remain the same… Personally, I am in awe of the complexity of the climate system and don’t want to anger the gods with the arrogance of claiming to understand climate change.
Today, the Los Angeles Times published an outrageous editorial comparing the Heartland Institute to Hitler…based on a fake document, no less. This is what they wrote Monday:
Leaked documents from the Heartland Institute in Chicago, one of many nonprofits that spread disinformation about climate science in hopes of stalling government action to combat global warming, reveal that the organization is working on a curriculum for public schools that casts doubt on the work of climatologists worldwide. Heartland officials say one of the documents was a fake, but the curriculum plans were reportedly discussed in more than one. According to the New York Times, * the curriculum would claim, among other things, that “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.”
That is a lie so big that, to quote from “Mein Kampf,” it would be hard for most people to believe that anyone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
I have tried, twice, to write about the Heartland Institute document non-scandal, but I just could not get my heart or mind into the Heartland non-issue. The fact that one or more pro-global warming blogs created a document and spread false information based on that document is just not something I want to spend my time on. Life is too short.
So, if you haven’t heard about this and want to know more, see (hardly conservative) Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.’s blog and Megan McArdle’s coverage in the (hardly conservative) The Atlantic.
But, the Times being complicit in this, and comparing Heartland to Hitler (based on a fake!), is beyond the pale. Let me summarize this mess:
Many reputable scientists dispute the Al Gore/IPCC catastrophic global warming hypothesis. Some, like me, believe human beings (on balance) mildly warm the climate but not to catastrophic levels. This small net warming is in the absence of major volcanic or solar changes.
I, and a small but growing number of scientists, are concerned about the sun’s behavior and the potential (not saying I’m predicting this) for significant cooling.
More research and more open-mindedness is needed in the climate research community.
The three points above, by themselves, would indicate that explaining to students there is doubt about catastrophic global warming, is something in the general realm of “reasonable” depending on the exact wording.
But, even if you think it is not reasonable to explain these doubts to schoolchildren, the document on which they based this editorial is widely believed to be a fake.
So, the Times editorial writers conclude, Heartland = Hitler.
Every time I think the pro-global warming forces cannot go any lower, I’m disappointed. For fear of repeating myself, Are these the behaviors of people who are confident in the accuracy of their position? To me, this increasingly outrageous behavior smacks of desperation.
For a decade, WeatherData, Inc. (the company I founded in 1981) provided the weather forecasts and storm coverage to the Times. I really enjoyed working with them and met a number of great journalists. To see the Times fall this far is terribly sad. The Times’ circulation is down, way down. The most recent figures I could find (2010) state:
Circulation at the Los Angeles Times fell 14.7% to 616,606 on weekdays and 7.6% to 941,914 on Sundays.
When we worked with them, their weekday circulation was close to a million!
The next time a newspaper executive complains about dropping readership and increased corporate losses, suggest they look in a mirror. I think most people, regardless of political orientation, are fed up with the “Hitler” accusation.
BULLETIN: As I was finishing this, Peter Gleick admits to “deception” in this matter. Details here.
*I give the NYT a bit of a pass here because they reported the information before it was established the critical document was fake. However, I have not been able to find a retraction.
Don’t normally do severe thunderstorm watches here but since it is early in the season and since two major metro areas (Oklahoma City and Wichita) and it is close to a third (Tulsa), I’m going ahead.
A severe thunderstorm watch means to watch for large hail (≥1″) and or damaging winds (≥58mph).
Here is the two warnings that are in effect. The first is a severe thunderstorm warning out just southwest of Wichita until 3:30pm. This storm is moving in the general direction of the Wichita/Sedgwick Co. area and has produced two reports of hail between 3/4″ and 1″. Radar at 3:16pm:
The second looks like it has large hail and damaging wind potential as is moves NE to ENE through northern Oklahoma.
One would think with the thousands of wind towers that have been erected in the Great Plains and elsewhere the last few years and all of the solar installations, we would be seeing conventional power plants decommissioned with all that new electricity, right?
Not a single U.S. power plant has been replaced by all of the recent wind and solar construction due to excess alternative energy. Because the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t always shine, the plants are needed for backup with their generators still spinning (“spinning reserve” as it is called in the industry).
In the words of the German Association of Physicists, “solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants.” On short, overcast winter days, Germany’s 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no electricity at all. The country is then forced to import considerable amounts of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic.
Indeed, despite the massive investment, solar power accounts for only about 0.3 percent of Germany’s total energy. This is one of the key reasons why Germans now pay the second-highest price for electricity in the developed world (exceeded only by Denmark, which aims to be the “world wind-energy champion”). Germans pay three times more than their American counterparts.
So, Germany is ending its subsidies. As environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg (author of the above piece) concludes:
In the meantime, Germans have paid about $130 billion for a climate-change policy that has no impact on global warming. They have subsidized Chinese jobs and other European countries’ reliance on dirty energy sources. And they have needlessly burdened their economy. As even many German officials would probably attest, governments elsewhere cannot afford to repeat the same mistake.
I’m in favor of stripping out all the subsidies for all types of energy and allowing the best technology and energy density (high with oil, very low with wind) win.
My friend Anthony Watts has created a reference page with just about everything you ant to know about climate. Whether a scientist or just an interested citizen just about everything you would want to know is there.
In talking with friends the last few days, a few have expressed astonishment that Sports Illustrated is picking Wichita State’s Shockers in the NCAA Final Four. They were last year’s NIT champions.
Here is the prediction:
Those of us in Kansas are well aware of Wichita State’s outstanding team this year. Just yesterday, they dominated Davidson in a bracket buster game 91-74.
I want to apologize for all of the technical problems we are having with the new blog design: videos disappearing, poor spacing, overaggressive spell check that subsitutes strange items, etc., etc.
We are working through the problems and I hope to get them solved soon.
Stormtrack.org is discussion group of meteorologists, storm chasers, and weather aficionados. Four days after the Greensburg tornado of Friday, May 4, 2007, the group was talking about a then-rarely used National Weather Service message called a “tornado emergency” (TE) that was issued by Mike Umscheid of the NWS office in Dodge City as the tornado approached the town.
Most of the commenters were complimentary of the TE. I was one of the few that was critical. I’d like to reproduce those comments from nearly 5 years ago because I believe they are highly pertinent to the discussions about the new tornado warnings on steroids that begin April 1 in from western Illinois to central Kansas. DDC = Dodge City NWS. ICT = Wichita. PDS = then-rare “particularly dangerous situation” tornado watch.
Here is the crux of the matter as far as I am concerned: We all agree that Friday’s TE was fine. It was issued on a classic hook with gate-to-gate shear off the chart. DDC got praise for issuing it.
The next evening a far weaker signature approached Great Bend. ICT NWS (for which I have great respect) appeared to feel compelled to issue a “tornado emergency.” It “busted.”
The first ever PDS tornado watch of which I am aware was April 26, 1991, which produced Andover, Red Rock and Cowley Co., all of which were F4 or F5. At first, PDS’s were rare.
Now, PDS tornado watches are issued much more frequently than they were at first. On Saturday, SPC issued five (more than used to be issued in an entire year), none of which verified from the point of view of long-track F4, F5′s (which was the original intent of the PDS watch). The tornado watch for Greensburg Friday was an “ordinary” tornado watch — but an extraordinary tornado occurred. Because it was an “ordinary” tornado watch did we want the public to be less aware? Do we really have that much meteorological reliability (which I define as consistent skill)?
Melbourne NWS in August, 2005, received praise for issuing a tornado warning for the 100 mph winds associated with the decaying eye of Hurricane Charley. It spread across the NWS and morphed into something unfortunate: Telling people in the path of Katrina to go to the lowest floor as a 30 ft. storm surge came in.
These things seem to have a “creep” to them. The first few are great. Then, they start being used more and more often until they become less meaningful. Then, they can continue to morph into something undesirable if a great deal of thought is not given to whether it is a good idea in the first place and, if so, what are the circumstances under which it is appropriate use the new special product. Otherwise, in a few years, TE’s might become routine until some NWS office issues a Super Duper Tornado Emergency message.
When you combine the TE concerns above with the additional complexity (are people going to hear about these new products and reprogram their WR-SAME, NWWR heading decoders, etc., in time for a future rare event?) especially in areas where tornadoes are infrequent, to catch the “tornado emergency message”? If they do, will they get disenchanted when their NWR’s are waking them up for Statements?
If you restrict TE’s to dense population areas, are we saying that a life in a big city is worth more than in a small town?
That is why I believe the polygon tornado warnings, which become official October 1, should be given a chance to work before we make another major change to the tornado warning system.
I do believe many influential and smart people read this board which is why I have posted my comments and spent so much time on this.
Thanks for reading, everyone,
Mike
The NWS did in fact tell people to go to the lowest floor of their homes as the 30′ storm surge of Hurricane Katrina moved in (I cover that entire issue in the Katrina chapters of Warnings).
And, the number of “tornado emergency” messages after Greensburg skyrocketed as predicted and the vast majority of them have been incorrect.
Now, as I feared 5 years ago, we will soon have two types of ”super duper” tornado warning. And, the affected NWS offices have the ability to add “A tornado is possible” to severe thunderstorm warnings. As this “creeps” (which it inevitably will), the “lines” (to the extent that people will be able to tell the difference between a “tornado emergency warning” and a “particularly dangerous situation tornado warning”) will blur and mass confusion will result.
Note: In view of the National Weather Service’s decision to experiment with tiered tornado and severe thunderstorm warnings in Missouri and Kansas beginning April 1, the concerns raised in this posting become more relevant than when it was first published on February 4. I’ve added additional information in maroon type and elevated it to the top of the blog for today. If you are not aware of the NWS’s plan (they still have not made a public announcement) see the two postings bellow.
Last week, I criticized journalism is general, and ABC News in particular, about lazy journalism when it comes to tornadoes. I wrote, pertaining to their inaccurate reporting there was “no warning” of the Alabama pre-dawn tornadoes,
This seems to confirm my suspicion that there is a key on journalists’ word processors that says “there was no warning” and they simply press that key every time they have to do a story about storms.
There seems to be another group that suffers from either lack of knowledge about the rapid progress we have made in the field of storm warnings, inertia, or timidity: Emergency managers.
As I have been gathering data from around the nation for the purpose of reviewing last year’s tornado season, it seems emergency managers have a mantra:
Nick Crossley, director of emergency management and homeland security for Johnson County, said the warnings on Saturday night were necessary throughout the entire county.
“We erred on the side of caution,” Crossley said. “It’s much better to sound the sirens and warn people than not to sound the sirens.”
Crossley was responding to criticism about sounding the sirens — twice in one evening — in areas that were never under a warning.
Or, take a look at this video from KMOV-TV, St. Louis, after I criticized St. Louis County for sounding sirens in areas more than 25 miles (with the tornado moving away) from the tornado. They have the capability to sound sirens selectively (i.e., NWS polygons) if they wish to do so.
He said, “I’d rather be safe than sorry” and that we “never know” which way a storm is moving.
So, how bad was the overwarning he was defending?
Above are two images I took during the storm. At left is the funnel cloud for which the warning was issued. At the bottom of the photo is the Mississippi River separating Missouri from Illinois and, at lower left, the south leg of the Gateway Arch.
At right is a photo of the local television storm coverage. “STL” is downtown St. Louis where my hotel room was located. The orange arrow denotes the “hook” echo which shows the tornado’s location and what prompted me to leave my room and go to a location in the hotel to take a photo of the funnel (note: it was past me, I was safe) as it moved northeast. There are no other storms to thewest yet the sirens are going off as far away as Pacific, MO (purple arrow).
Below is a Google Map image showing the location of the funnel (F) moving northeast (thick red arrow). The orange arrow from the above image is carried over. Pacific, MO is located with the purple arrow as above. Pacific is 35 miles behind the tornado threat which is moving northeast, away from Pacific!
I’m not talking about a mile or two safety buffer, I’m talking about tens of miles! St. Louis County has the technological capability to sound the sirens only in areas actually threatened but they choose not to use it.
Now, take a look at this story from WFIE-TV in Indiana from January 18th (updated Jan. 25th) that came to my attention yesterdayFebruary 3:
The National Weather Service allows each county to decide which sirens to set off during a storm.
14 News found some Tri-State counties are now choosing this option, while others say their policies won’t change.
40 sirens sounded Tuesday morning, getting attention all across Vanderburgh County for a warning that was only issued for the northern section.
Meteorologists clarified on Twitter that the warning did not include Evansville, even though the sirens were going off.
“Our policy is always to sound them off through the whole county,” said Vanderburgh County EMA director Sherman Greer.
Greer says it’s a policy that errs on the side of safety. [emphasis mine]
“Meteorology and the weather and everything is not an exact science,” Greer pointed out.
That is why he’s not comfortable with switching to that new option, from the National Weather Service, that would allow him to set off only those sirens located in the affected part of the county.
“If something strays a little bit further than that area, then we’ve got a problem.”
“I think it’s a good idea. I’m not convinced yet that they are quite as precise as we would like to see it,” said Henderson EMA Director Larry Koerber.
Across the river in Henderson, Koerber also fires all 32 of his sirens, no matter where the storm is in the county.
“We don’t want to miss something and say ‘Well,if the path is there in the southern part of the county’ and sure enough it makes a left turn and winds up in the middle of Henderson,” Koerber says.
We keep hearing from emergency managers; and there are many more examples I can cite:
Error on the side of safety.
Activating sirens over and over and over in areas where there is no threat (deliberately sounding them in Evansville even though the tornado warning did not include Evansville). Is that really erring on the side of safety?
Or, is it really erring on the side of protecting the emergency manager from second guessing (i.e., fear of criticism if a tornado occurs without the sirens going off)?
There is also the complementary comment that meteorologists “don’t know” where the tornadoes are and/or don’t know where they are going to go. This was true 40 years ago during the early years of trying to warn people of tornadoes. We weren’t very good at it then. “Better safe than sorry” made sense in the 60′s and 70′s and, in some areas with poor radar coverage, even the 80′s.
Today: This deliberate and geographically exaggerated overwarning makes no sense in an era of Doppler and Dual-Polarization radars, debris balls, GPS storm reports, etc., etc. As I previously reported on the blog, 99+% of the tornado fatalities in 2011 occurred in areas that were under both a tornado watch and tornado warning before the fatality occurred. Meteorology does know where the storms are going to be.
So, here is the problem: The evidence is rapidly accumulating that “erring on the side of safety” is doing nothing but training people to ignore warning sirens.
I mentioned last week that I’m working on a project that pertains to last year’s tornadoes and I originally wanted to get into this subject when I was farther along. But, the news report from Evansville tweaked my conscience.
It is long past time to stop warning areas tens of miles away from the tornado threat. The polygon warnings, while not perfect, build in enough margin of safety to allow sirens to be sounded in and along the polygon.
Heck, build in a 1-2 mile buffer (easy to do with today’s technology). But stop sounding sirens in areas tens of miles away from any threat!
Between the media inaccurately yet constantly telling people how bad the warnings are and emergency managers sounding the sirens 20 miles behind the tornado it is almost a wonder that anyone pays attention. But, with good television and radio reporting, many are able to intelligently respond and save their lives in spite of these handicaps. But, there is no reason for an environment where making the correct decision has to be so hard.
Based on the preliminary research I have done pertaining to 2011, there is no question that complacency cost lives. I’ll have more when I am finished with the work.
There is still time in many jurisdictions to implement a new policy in time for the 2012 tornado season. Great started, please. Otherwise, I fear we are going to more lose precious lives to complacency.
ADDITION Saturday 11am: I’ve received some surprising (at least to me) feedback about this post. Apparently, a number of readers do not know that I have written a book documenting how accurate storm warnings have become. For those interested, it is Warnings: The True Story of How Science Tamed the Weather. Warnings is a non-technical read that explains how courageous scientists built the system that managed the amazing feat of getting both a watch and warning in place in advance of 99% of the fatalities in 2011′s record tornado season.
While there is still work to be done, there is no question that meteorology has advanced storm warnings to where they should be accorded the level of respect that medical diagnosis receive.
If you doubt that is the case, please read the book (OK with me if you go to the library or buy the less expensive ebook version!) before 2012′s tornado and hurricane seasons. Doing so might save your life!
Addition (Feb. 18): I learned last week that Johnson County, Iowa became the fourth jurisdiction since Joplin to announce that it will start sounding sirens for severe thunderstorm warnings, including 1″ hail, which is why this posting is so important. The key to saving lives is getting people to take action and they will only do so if they feel comfortable with their decision.
Combined with the National Weather Service’s plan to complicate the tornado warnings and give their local offices the option of adding the sentence, “A tornado is possible.” to severe thunderstorm warnings, we are setting ourselves for confusion, delays seeking shelter, and — potentially — the loss of additional lives.
I have an incorrect list of the National Weather Service offices participating in the test of the severe thunderstorm and tornado warnings I write about below. Here is the correct list:
St. Louis (meaning part of Illinois is included)
Springfield (meaning traumatized Joplin will be experimented upon)
Kansas City
Topeka
Wichita
To the best of my knowledge, the rest of the posting is correct. Thanks to Chance Hayes and Chad Omitt for the correct list of offices.
That is the sound of the National Weather Service blowing up the severe thunderstorm and tornado warning system that has served us so very well for so many years. Starting April 1, in the geographic areas served by the National Weather Service offices in Kansas City, Wichita, Springfield (MO), Dodge City, Topeka and Goodland (KS), there will be multi-tiered severe thunderstorm and tornado warnings.
The changes which I will describe below spring from the high death toll from U.S. tornadoes in general, and the Joplin tornado in particular, in 2011. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they will make the issues worse and will likely cost lives due to confusion.
The New Severe Thunderstorm Warnings
The NWS is going to put additional emphasis on hail size and wind speed, which is fine. While imperfect, the science exists to do this.
Unfortunately, they are going to allow a sentence to be added to severe thunderstorm warnings that states, “A tornado is possible.” What do you or a school principal do with that? Go halfway down the basement stairs?
Given the political pressure the National Weather Service seems to be under at the moment, I forecast that many severe thunderstorm warnings will contain that unfortunate sentence and the “overwarning” problem, which we know causes complacency, will get measurably worse.
The New Tornado Warnings
This is where it really gets bad. There will be, starting April 1, three types of tornado warnings:
The “ordinary” tornado warning
A tornado warning declaring a “particularly dangerous situation”
A “tornado emergency” for “catastrophic” damage.
The first problem is that the science does not exist to do this! We have no skill at short-term tornado strength forecasting. None.
Second, who is going to be able to keep straight whether a “tornado emergency” is better or worse than a “particularly dangerous situation”?
Third, even if #1 and #2 were not issues, what do you want the public to do differently?! Since we meteorologists want everyone to take shelter during a tornado warning, the two “tornado warnings on steroids” are superfluous.
Here is the National Weather Service’s hypothetical example based around the Joplin storm:
* AT 514 PM CDT…A TORNADO EMERGENCY FOR THE CITY OF JOPLIN. A CONFIRMED LARGE AND DESTRUCTIVE TORNADO WAS LOCATED NEAR BAXTER SPRINGS MOVING NORTHEAST AT 40 MPH.
THIS IS A PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS SITUATION.
Fourth, they are going to elevate any accompanying wind and/or hail threat. To use the NWS’s example, which is built around the Joplin tornado,
HAZARD…DEADLY TORNADO AND BASEBALL SIZE HAIL
The problem with this is that literally dozens of devices are now parsing these messages. During the Joplin tornado, two of my friends were trapped in the path of the storm because a message about hail (the least of their problems) overwrote a text message about the tornado.
What does a person do when hail is coming? Run outside and put the car in the garage….the last thing we want them to do when a violent tornado is approaching.
If the National Weather Service believes an F-5 tornado is approaching they should be urging people to take shelter and forget about the hail, lightning and other hazards.
Fifth, the chance of getting the people of Kansas, western Missouri, and adjacent areas educated by April 1 is extremely low. It has taken forty years to get the “watch” and “warning” concept to where they have widespread acceptance. I doubt this can be done in forty days.
This isn’t just my opinion. Dr. Laura Myers, a social scientist at Mississippi State University, wrote yesterday,
My conclusion: It would seem that more detail and more warning levels would help, but I think it just leads to confusion and [warning] fatigue.
When a tornado is bearing down, people need to act and act quickly. Having to think through warning types is counterproductive.
This experiment has the potential, through confusion, to undo a half-century of great progress in tornado warnings. I urge the National Weather Service to reconsider and call the experiment off.
Because of the importance of this issue, I’m going to leave this on the top of the blog through Friday evening.
Mike Smith will be speaking to members of the agricultural community next week at the 2012 Commodity Classic to be held at the Airport Hilton in Wichita, Kansas on Tuesday, February 21, 2012. Mike will be addressing the group of ag producers followed by U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan). Mike will also be signing copies of his book WARNINGS:The True Story of How Science Tamed the Weather (Greenleaf 2010) after his presentation.
The following week Mike will be the guest speaker at three American AgCredit Insurance Producer Update Meetings to be held at Martinelli’s in Salina on February 27th, the Airport Hilton in Wichita on February 28th and the Stone Ridge Country Club in Great Bend on February, 29th. Mike’s topic will be the 2012 Spring and Summer Weather Outlook.
Moisture conditions generally continue to improve in the winter wheat belt, but in most areas west of U.S. 81 quite a bit more rain is needed to catch up after the deficits of 2011.
Here is a map of precipitation the last 90 days:
90-Day Precipitation from the NWS
And, here is a percent of normal map:
The precipitation outlook the next two weeks is relatively good for the region.
