Weather or Not

Severe Outflow by R. Edwards

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives

Powered by Genesis

December 10th Tornado Devastation: Thoughts after Four Days

December 14, 2021 by tornado Leave a Comment

Thoughts I’ve accumulated from last Friday night’s tornado disaster in the Mid-South, Tennessee Valley and Kentucky…

Forecasts were very good. Outlooks, watches and warnings ramped up into the event. Sure, one can look back and do “coulda shoulda” style Monday-morning quarterbacking about peripheral details or one level this way or that. Such second-guessing happens after most events, soonest from people who don’t have what it takes to “sit in the hot seat”, and instead make a social-media presence as nuisance trolls. Holistically, the Integrated Warning System did its job and did it well in every step until public safety (in a few locales). Mayfield, KY, had been in a tornado watch for over 6 hours before it was hit, and that whole track of tornado(es) was very well-warned by local forecast offices.

Were there glitches? Of course. The St. Louis-area office had to shelter temporarily when a tornadic mesocyclone nearly hit them — the same one that hit the Amazon warehouse in Pontoon Beach, IL, soon thereafter. The Paducah KY office lost power and the ability to send radar data for a few hours; their warning service was backed up quickly and adroitly by Springfield, MO (who has some experience with these things).

Footage from the most intense tornado damage areas presents awful scenes — reminiscent to me of historic events like Waco-53, Wichita Falls-79, Spencer SD-98, Tuscaloosa-11, Joplin-11, Moore, OK (thrice: 1999, 2003, 2013!), etc. The collapsed buildings and slabbed houses in particular will tell a terrible story. Despite good warnings, long-tracked tornado(es) from AR into MO/TN/KY were deadly in multiple places, not just Mayfield, and separately in that Amazon warehouse across the Mississippi River from St. Louis.

The morning after through today, it’s very important not go “instapundit” and rush to spouting exact figures yet for casualties, track length, or damage rating. Was the southern Kentucky event the longest-tracked ever? We don’t know yet; there’s some evidence both ways at this juncture. [Take some time to read the definitive, formally published science on the 1925 Tri-State tornado path.] How long-tracked & intense were all the tornadoes? We don’t know. All else is speculation. Until NWS damage surveys w/boots on ground are finished, we won’t know. The rest is variably educated guesswork. In such mass destruction, surveys and debris cleanup are still way incomplete. Casualty totals remain in flux for days, and some people perish later from injuries sustained (unfortunately, one was that beautiful Kentucky baby who initially survived in her car seat). Don’t treat any tornado info as final until survey results are released in days to come. Let’s back off, be patient & let the process fill in those facts with time.

Journalism on this event has run the gamut in quality from excellent to wretched, and that’s just in one newspaper (Washington Post). What else is new?

The worst of the journalism: take this steaming heap of dung, for example, sprinkling in some legit facts with factual errors, sloppiness and conjecture. Let’s look into this story a little closer. It was written by a political correspondent, not a scientist nor science reporter. So adjust your bias detectors & credibility expectations accordingly. More importantly…It also states, “The tornado that struck over the weekend that traveled from Kentucky into Arkansas…”. 1) Factually wrong. Backward. 2) Premature at story time on claiming that it was 1 (“the”) tornado. Surveys are not done yet. We don’t know. There goes the story’s credibility. If one can’t get basics like that right, what else do they screw up in any sort of stories? Don’t write “news” like this, kids.

Want an example of a well-done, well-researched, smartly organized, on-point story on the tornado event, authored by someone with solid credentials and impeccable subject-matter experience? Look no further than this excellent article by Bob Henson, which you really ought to read. Both this masterpiece and the junk story above appeared in the same newspaper.

The sad stories are worth reading too. Every tornado disaster has a human side, perhaps none more compelling in a tragic way than this story of the Kentucky baby who survived, bruised and conscious, only to perish later of a stroke probably induced by her injuries. I post that not to glorify tragedy, but to remind all that every single digit of every tornado death count involves the loss of someone and their future, someone who had friends and loved ones now grieving. In this case, the future was an entire lifespan. As a parent, how can this not hit hard? Sometimes we need these reminders, and we need to get uncomfortable. Detachment breeds complacency.

Let’s get brutally honest about something here. When a violent wedge tornado engulfs a densely populated area, devastation is assured. Even the very best warnings only minimize, not eliminate, casualties. Think Greensburg KS (4 May 2007), which had a similarly intense radar presentation as Mayfield, and excellent warning. We do what we can to minimize that from the meteorological end, of course. Many more vulnerabilities, after warnings are issued, still exist in the South, at night, with local preparedness, warning receipt, access to sturdy shelter, construction quality, etc. It’s complicated. As Bob Henson wrote in the above-linked good story: “…the timing of the tornadoes, coming in the dark of night, their exceptional intensity and the population density of the region hit were all key factors in the catastrophe — which advanced warning could not overcome.” That’s the bottom line.

Mayfield candle and Amazon facilities: It’s still to early to know a lot of specifics beyond the obvious fact that large-span factory/warehouse structures collapsed onto people and killed some. So let’s be patient on that and not start foaming at the mouth based on anecdotal interview stories. As a severe-storms forecaster concerned for decades with large-venue vulnerability & safety (including occupied factories), this bothers me…a lot. We must learn why so many perished there, not to assign blame but to make a safer tornado future. I’m very glad Tim Marshall is on-site in Mayfield, so we will assuredly get the best possible assessment there. From what is obvious, and in a general sense: if you want to look to improve on tornado casualties in situations like those, look to (lack of) local sheltering options, improved receipt of and response to both watches and warnings, and of course construction.

We can say already that this is a story of failure: structural failure. When roofs fall on people, crushing injuries happen. We know that caused many fatalities in single locations like these warehouses. This already presents us with two areas on which to focus, specifics to be determined:
a) Sheltering (such as sufficient capacity safe rooms and procedures to get workers into them fast and orderly) for existing large-span facilities that may never be retrofitted for decades and decades into the future, and
b) Engineering for new structures of that sort, along with safe rooms. New ASCE engineering standards are fixing to go into effect, which will be good, but we’ll still be dealing with non-compliant legacy construction hit by tornadoes for 200+ years.

That brings us to onsite safety in general. Here’s the encouraging news: We have a major positive example to use! In July 2004, a violent tornado demolished the Parsons factory near Roanoke, IL. Nobody died. Why? Facility management had a well-organized, practiced tornado-safety plan, sturdy shelters to put people in, and storm spotters to give them notice added to what they could get from official warnings. Here’s the scientific conference paper on that shining example of how to do it right.

We learned and advanced from Waco, Palm Sunday(s), April ’74, Wichita Falls, Spencer, Moore, Tuscaloosa, Joplin, etc. Now this. Over time we’ll learn from last Friday night’s horrors, so we can educate & try to keep it from happening again, and so their tragic loss isn’t in vain.

Filed Under: Weather Tagged With: Arkansas tornadoes, damage surveys, disasters, Illinois tornadoes, Kentucky tornadoes, large-venue disasters, large-venue safety, Missouri tornadoes, severe storms, severe weather, severe weather preparedness, Tennessee tornadoes, tornado, tornado outbreak, tornado safety, tornado warnings, tornadoes, violent tornadoes

Student Concern for Future of Operational Forecasting

April 24, 2019 by tornado Leave a Comment

Very recently, I got the following note from a student. While such e-mails arrive on occasion, this one (in bold) was uniquely thoughtful and thought-provoking, as you’ll see in my somewhat long-winded response, reproduced below it in italics. This represents a strong concern I’ve heard from several undergrad and grad students over this decade, and it’s likely just smoke from a larger fire of worry out there in student-land. So I’m addressing it here for a broader audience, using that correspondence.

This entire package has become a second supplementary BLOG entry here to the original post (read first). [Here was the first supplemental entry, from 2018 (read second).]

    I’m writing you as a junior mathematics student who has (for most of my life) had an absolute fascination with weather, particularly severe convection, and the forecast process. I enjoy forecasting severe weather as a hobby and pastime and am considering graduate school in meteorology. My question is: What do you view as the future of the role of humans in the forecast process? What I’ve gathered from several sources, including your blog (which I enjoy reading a lot, by the way), is that humans will likely always play a role in the process, especially in short term and high impact forecasts. Do you think this is an accurate view, especially in light of initiatives like NWS Evolve? I would hate to pursue this field professionally only to find out in 5–10 years that the job I want doesn’t exist, or doesn’t exist in the form that I would want to work in.

Thanks for writing.  My personal thoughts outlined on that BLOG entry (which of course don’t necessarily represent my employer) are still valid in the era of “NWS Evolve“.  The direction clearly is more toward automating single-variable forecasts like temperature, wind, and so forth, especially days out, and converting more and more forecaster time to short-fused, targeted, higher-impact priorities like warnings and watches, and to what’s called “Decision Support Services”.  That’s basically bureaucratic lingo for communicating with power users of forecasts:  emergency managers (local, state, FEMA), media, law enforcement, other government agencies at all levels, and direct-to-public engagement (such as social media and online briefings).

Understanding of meteorology still will be as important as ever.  It has to be.  You cannot fully and effectively communicate what you don’t understand.  Some people with highly polished speaking or writing skills, but deficient in understanding, can skate by for awhile with audiences of less expertise.  They look and sound like they know more than they do.  However, eventually they will make a mistake based on that lack of knowledge, and lose credibility for preventable reasons having nothing to do with normal forecast error.  In what we do, credibility is everything.  Do everything you can to earn and keep it!

That’s why your undergrad math and graduate meteorology degree(s) won’t be useless, but MUST be supplemented with good communications skills—written and verbal.  I can tell from the quality of your e-mail that you’re off to a good start on the written side.  Keep it up!  Enhancement of writing skills (even if already good, like yours) is a necessary and career-long process.  Take advantage of opportunities for public speaking and accepting critiques of that, too. The higher-impact the forecast, the more communications skills matter. 

I know it’s an overused cliche, but it’s true in this science:  it also helps nowadays to learn to code.  Back in the late ’80s and early ’90s when the NWS forecaster depended more completely on applications of science theory, I didn’t have to.  You will.  Fortunately any good degree program will include that as part of the curriculum, and I hope you’re already taking advantage of both required and elective programming opportunities.

Communication also is increasingly important on the forecast floor, as the process is more cooperative and multi-person in nature than ever.  [I’m trying to avoid the bureaucratic buzzword, “collaborative”.  :-)]  I lean heavily on my colleagues with good coding skills in my research and forecasting, through the tools they develop.  I depend on them in live situations, for specific meteorological experiences I still haven’t seen.  In turn they learn from my decades of experience, conceptual understanding, attention to analytic detail, and deep immersion in the science.  Anymore, forecasting on an island on shift is a dying concept.  Nobody can know everything, and consistent excellence depends on input of others who also have expertise.

I cannot promise the job (especially at a local-office level) won’t evolve out of a form that you would want to work in.  Maybe it will.  Maybe it won’t.  Science conceivably could be de-prioritized or centralized, orphaning the local level to one of weather communicator only, or consolidating scientifically based forecasting in fewer and fewer physical places.  If that happens, I don’t know how long it would take—it’s largely at the whim of higher-level managerial policy and priorities. 

That’s why you need a good backup plan (that I gambled on not having!) to operational meteorology, just in case.  The good news is:  that’s still years off, if at all, and you can and should accumulate the skills you’ll need to adapt to that and any other reasonable contingency.  But don’t abandon the dream before pursuing it, just because the job might change in unfulfilling ways.  It may not, or you could find yourself in an unforeseen opportunity that turns out to be a “blessing in disguise”.  In the meantime, I find no better calling than providing the best forecasts humanly possible to the local offices, media, storm spotters, and EMs, and through them, the taxpayers at large who depend upon us.  If you are thinking along those lines, then please, go for it, all-out.  We and the taxpayers certainly could use such talent and motivation.

Sorry for the verbosity…you got me going on a near-and-dear topic. 
🙂

I hope this helps. Good luck with your studies!

===== Roger =====

Filed Under: Weather Tagged With: career, communication skills, education, forecast automation, forecasting, meteorological cancer, science, student

Tornadoes Do Not “Touch Down”

May 21, 2018 by tornado Leave a Comment

Here is a weather-writing pro tip and public-service announcement that I sporadically post on social media, reproduced here for more indelible digital posterity.

Tornadoes do not “touch down.”

Saying tornadoes “touch down” is literally wrong, and bad science. At the time of tornado genesis, the air actually is rising, not moving downward.

Instead, use any of these easier, briefer, more factually truthful alternatives:

              start

              begin

              form

              develop

              appear

              commence

              initiate

There you have it: more conciseness with greater accuracy, a resounding win-win in writing!

Filed Under: Weather Tagged With: atmospheric convection, bad science, journalism, meteorology, reporting, science, science writing, tornado, tornadoes, weather, writing

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 48
  • Next Page »

Search

Recent Posts

  • Heavy Blow to Scientific Credibility
  • The Fallacy of “Compromise” with Gaslighting Forces of Tyranny
  • American Education: Emulate the Asian Model of Rigor and Effort
  • Gasoline Prices: A Layered Issue
  • Fatherhood

Categories

  • Not weather
  • Photographic Adventures
  • Scattershooting
  • Weather
  • Weather AND Not
@SkyPixWeather

- August 17, 2022, 7:11 am

@Meteodan I’ve seen very similar video of multiple “steam devils” circa 2016 on Kilauea’s fresh/hot lava fields, in light rain and low clouds, shot by a tour guide there. Some of them were tall enough to connect with the low, scuddy cloud bases above, at least briefly.
h J R
@SkyPixWeather

- August 17, 2022, 7:08 am

@SitkaBustClub @shawnahaynie Happy anniversary!
h J R
@SkyPixWeather

- August 17, 2022, 6:58 am

One thing I noticed right off: the lava bombs landing on the outside of the cinder cone take much less time to lose their glow (cool down below incandescence) in these conditions. Not surprising amidst high winds and cold rain!
h J R

Blogroll

  • CanadianTexan
  • Chuck's Chatter
  • Cliff Mass Weather & Climate
  • Digital Photography Review
  • DMN Dallas Cowboys BLOG
  • Dr. Cook's Blog
  • Dr. JimmyC
  • E-journal of Severe Storms Meteorology
  • Eloquent Science
  • Image of the Week
  • Jack's Cam Wall
  • Jim LaDue View
  • Laura Ingraham
  • MADWEATHER
  • Michelle Malkin
  • Photography Attorney
  • Severe Weather Notes
  • SkyPix by Roger Edwards
  • Tornatrix
  • With All My Mind

Meta

  • Log in