Weather or Not

Severe Outflow by R. Edwards

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives

Powered by Genesis

Independent Review Needed for Weather Disasters and Warning Verification

July 30, 2026 by tornado Leave a Comment

As a 35-year national NWS forecaster and researcher in severe and tropical meteorology, I support the bipartisan National Weather Safety Board (NWSB) Act, which would provide an NTSB-like board review of weather disasters. Numerous other meteorologists and I have suggested something akin to this for many years.

While I agree with fellow retired NWS scientist Alan Gerard in his “Substack” column that it doesn’t do enough to evaluate non-weather disasters nor NWS performance, we shouldn’t let the perfect get in the way of the good. The NWSB Act would be a positive step toward learning from weather disasters in a systematic, consistent and accountable way, not the overpoliticized, self-interested, wagon-circling shams that the “NWS Service Assessments” often became.

Improving NWS verification services may need separate legislative action anyway, especially to address one of the most blatant, yet little-discussed, conflicts of interest that exist in all of federal government, and has for decades: verification of weather warnings by the very same offices that issue them (often, even the same forecasters).

This includes rampant use of estimated — as opposed to measured — wind and hail reports, with over 90% of thunderstorm-wind “verification” being estimates and, based on human wind-tunnel experiments, overestimates. [For much more on this, read a formally peer-reviewed, scientific publication that I lead-authored.] It’s a fox-guarding-henhouse verification system rife with opportunities for padding and inflation, regardless of how much actually happens (which is practically unknowable).

As someone who loves the NWS as a 35-year public servant there, and sees it as an extremely valuable service for the taxpayer (at a bit over a penny a person a day), its very integrity and scientific credibility depend on eliminating conflicts of interest, and ensuring optimal service through independent evaluation of both disaster services and warning performance.

One likely finding I already predict, with great confidence, will be that NWS technology and delivery each need vast improvement. Due in part to longstanding short-staffing and failure to encourage and enable true innovation, both NWS’ front-facing forecast suite (including web/app presence) and internal capabilities have become vastly outdated.

To wit, we should have been using four-dimensional, XYZ-plane-rotatable displays of model and radar fields by the time I retired, on touchscreens. That tech has been in the media at least 25 years, gaming industry since the late 1990s, Hollywood even earlier. Three-dimensional storm simulations have been around in research since 1978, on then-massive computers with less capacity than high-end gaming desktops and cloud computing of today, and finescale simulations of tornadoes and their parent supercells with Hollywood-quality graphic output were run a decade ago, on data far denser than modern operational weather models.

Instead, the most advanced severe-weather forecast operation in the world (SPC) still was — and remains — stuck with 30-year-old 2D display systems and having to mouse-click individual points on outlook lines (instead of using a stylus or finger to save time). The only 3D rotatable displays in the NWS are in licensed private-sector radar software (GR2 Analyst)!

We already should have had nationally deployed, phased-array, dual-polarization radar by 2011 when in reality, the old, greasy mechanical dishes (increasingly failure prone) were retrofitted with dual-pol. Both phased array and dual-pol tech, BTW, were in military and lab use before I was born. One is still not in our radars.

As for forecast presentation, technical discussions for other meteorologists still have their place, and should. Yet I agree with those who say we (NWS, of which I am a proud retiree) could do a much better job conveying threats in meaningful, animated, easy to understand ways. Yes, that should include robust app development and aggressive use of modern web capabilities—not handcuffing ourselves to the slowest common denominator of 486 processors and Netscape because somebody, somewhere, might still be using a teletype emulator. Hell, it wasn’t until just a decade ago that we quit using ALL CAPS in everything, like it was still 1967.

It’s baffling that we still have to issue watches with expiration times, instead of rolling them along open-ended with the threats, as we discussed among us (“amoeba watches”) for 20+ years. That predates the oft-tested, never implemented concept of “Threats in Motion” for warnings, which is very similar, and which also is long past technological capability for operationalizing. Funding (or lack thereof) has played a role, but in my experience, bureaucratic intransigence and a CYA culture frightened of innovation was at least as responsible.

Independent review would highlight shortcomings — both technological and situational — not to assign blame, but to spotlight areas for improvement. NWS, and the entire weather enterprise, should welcome true accontability!

Filed Under: Weather Tagged With: atmospheric science, damage, disasters, federal government, forecast verification, forecasting, Integrated Warning System, meteorology, science, severe storms, severe weather, severe-storm warnings, verification, warnings, weather, weather damage, weather warnings, wind damage

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

Fort Worth Mega-Wreck

February 11, 2021 by tornado Leave a Comment

As of this writing, about 16 hours after it started in the pre-dawn darkness, the massive icing-related vehicle pileup on I-35 in near northern Fort Worth has claimed 6 lives, with at least 65 people being treated for injuries. Here’s a rolling story from local TV station WFAA channel 8.

We’ve seen horror scenes like this in recent years from Interstates in places like Iowa, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It illustrates the fundamental truth that the physics of friction know no geographic limits. I saw it in person in the ice storm of New Years Day 1979, when abandoned vehicles, that had slid off Central Expressway in Dallas, sported not just Texas plates, but Indiana, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, among others. Nobody, from anywhere, is immune to sliding on icy roads. Neither maturity, nor experience, nor even understanding of the laws of physics, makes one immune to them. And a lot of drivers have none of the above.

I’ve driven this stretch of Interstate many times. It’s ideally prone to a mass crash of this sort: an elevated roadway (preferentially ices), headed southbound into an area of tight curves and narrow lanes near downtown, with the approach not visible over a blind hill, where a crash can’t be seen at highway speeds until too late. The thin ice glaze had begun not long before, overnight when traffic was lower. Local officials claimed the road had been salted, but obviously insufficiently.

It was the perfect storm of bad circumstances for such a disaster, except for one aspect: the weather forecast from NWS Ft. Worth (incidentally, located just a couple miles from this mess) was very good, so that wasn’t the problem. Likely some weren’t paying attention to the local forecast or otherwise were ignorant of it (here’s looking at both locals and long-haul truckers).

It’s not as simple as “stay home” either. Many people still are “critical/essential” workers who have to report to in-person duties regardless of weather (including storm forecasters like me!); indeed, the story notes quite a few people in the pileup were health workers. Such situations present a major hazard to first responders (cops, fire crews, ambulances) who have to get in there, close off the scene, sort through the carnage, and treat and remove people. It’s also hazardous to second responders (wrecker personnel, HAZMAT remediators, sanitation crews who have to clean up the roadway of debris, and such). As the story notes, these are events for which emergency management prepares, but hopes not to need to execute their plans. They had to here.

Vehicle-to-vehicle communications tech could help in these scenarios, but is a long way off from standardized mass deployment, and realistically, mostly won’t be retrofitted on older vehicles. Trucking firms should prioritize for this, since their momentum and deadliness are greatest in general, and clearly were here (if you’ve seen the crash video taken from a car on the opposite side of the freeway).

Pray for the injured and the families of the casualties.

Filed Under: Weather AND Not Tagged With: disasters, ice storm, transportation, weather, weather safety

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Search

Recent Posts

  • Independent Review Needed for Weather Disasters and Warning Verification
  • Socialism vs. Communism
  • Critique of Some Weather AI Slop
  • Lessons from a Dallas Deck Park
  • Useful Idiot, Now Merely Idiot

Categories

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

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
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org