5 ms·

I lived in Midwest for over 20 years. There were times when I'd be sipping coffee while sitting outside a coffee shop underneath giant funnel clouds above. Torn

I lived in Midwest for over 20 years. There were times when I'd be sipping coffee while sitting outside a coffee shop underneath giant funnel clouds above. Tornado alerts are common but touchdowns are so rare that you just kind of not pay attention anymore. With that said, it seems like when they do occur they are increasingly more damaging and closer to densely populated areas. Two years ago there was one just a few miles outside of Kansas City downtown. I remember hearing the next days in the news that it was nothing short of a miracle that it didn't move toward downtown and instead went off into the rural parts of the city.

CamperBob2 5y ago
Interesting. I lived in the Midwest for nearly 20 years as well. Tornado watches were common, warnings much less so... and if anyone saw a funnel cloud, it was time to panic, duck, and cover right freaking now.
- syshum 5y ago
  years ago they would only call a warning when they had a confirmed visual on a touch down, I am not sure when they made the change but for at least the last few years (and probably longer) I have noticed them calling more and more warning based on radar signature alone
  - goseeastarwar 5y ago
    I'd venture a guess that's due to better radar and better spotting intelligence. When you can't physically see tornadoes when they're rain-wrapped, but have high confidence that they're there, you're putting lives at risk by not activating the sirens.
  - cbfrench 5y ago
    In part because the radar tech has advanced so much. Based on reflectivity, velocity, and correlation coefficient alone, they are able to make a pretty sound guess about whether or not a supercell or QLCS is capable of producing a tornado. There’s no reason why you would want to wait for visual confirmation of the radar output when it could mean the difference (potentially) between giving people in the path a long or a short lead time on the warning.
    - 1123581321 5y ago
      There is a reason, which is that the new criteria for warning trains people to not take them seriously as they don't necessarily mean acute danger from tornado anymore. As our radar technology has advanced, it's really a shame that warnings are less indicative of a tornado than they were a decade ago. A better solution would be three categories of warning (watch, new possibly fake warning, and the old real warning) as each should prompt more response than the lower tier.
      - cbfrench 5y ago
        The general public can’t grasp the distinction between watches and warnings, and your solution is to divide warnings into subcategories?
        progman32 5y ago
        I suspect the confusion is the specific but uncommon word choice. Perhaps if they were called something like "tornado likely" and "active tornado", respectively, it would be more widely understood.
        cbfrench 5y ago
        Now, that’s a reasonable solution. My only concern is that people won’t take “tornado likely” seriously. But I guess, based on OP, people don’t take “tornado warning” seriously, either.
        1123581321 5y ago
        My proposed solution is to continue to reserve the word warning for its old use, to keep people safe by preventing the cry-wolf effect and to introduce an intermediate term to appease the people who want to ring the alarm more often and communicate with locals who want more information. I agree that the older, simpler watch and warning system was better, if that's what you're saying.
        5y ago
syshum 5y ago
> it seems like when they do occur they are increasingly more damaging and closer to densely populated areas. I think this more a function of urban sprawl, and the fact there are simply more populated area spread out over larger tracts of land, thus the odds of a tornado hitting a population center increase. In short the tornadoes are not moving closer, the populated areas are what has moved
throwawayboise 5y ago
OK, that seems completely weird. I've lived in the midwest for 50 years, and have never seen a funnel cloud (I have seen the aftermath of a few).

CamperBob2 5y ago

Interesting. I lived in the Midwest for nearly 20 years as well. Tornado watches were common, warnings much less so... and if anyone saw a funnel cloud, it was time to panic, duck, and cover right freaking now.

syshum 5y ago
years ago they would only call a warning when they had a confirmed visual on a touch down, I am not sure when they made the change but for at least the last few years (and probably longer) I have noticed them calling more and more warning based on radar signature alone
- goseeastarwar 5y ago
  I'd venture a guess that's due to better radar and better spotting intelligence. When you can't physically see tornadoes when they're rain-wrapped, but have high confidence that they're there, you're putting lives at risk by not activating the sirens.
- cbfrench 5y ago
  In part because the radar tech has advanced so much. Based on reflectivity, velocity, and correlation coefficient alone, they are able to make a pretty sound guess about whether or not a supercell or QLCS is capable of producing a tornado. There’s no reason why you would want to wait for visual confirmation of the radar output when it could mean the difference (potentially) between giving people in the path a long or a short lead time on the warning.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    There is a reason, which is that the new criteria for warning trains people to not take them seriously as they don't necessarily mean acute danger from tornado anymore. As our radar technology has advanced, it's really a shame that warnings are less indicative of a tornado than they were a decade ago. A better solution would be three categories of warning (watch, new possibly fake warning, and the old real warning) as each should prompt more response than the lower tier.
    - cbfrench 5y ago
      The general public can’t grasp the distinction between watches and warnings, and your solution is to divide warnings into subcategories?
      - progman32 5y ago
        I suspect the confusion is the specific but uncommon word choice. Perhaps if they were called something like "tornado likely" and "active tornado", respectively, it would be more widely understood.
        cbfrench 5y ago
        Now, that’s a reasonable solution. My only concern is that people won’t take “tornado likely” seriously. But I guess, based on OP, people don’t take “tornado warning” seriously, either.
      - 1123581321 5y ago
        My proposed solution is to continue to reserve the word warning for its old use, to keep people safe by preventing the cry-wolf effect and to introduce an intermediate term to appease the people who want to ring the alarm more often and communicate with locals who want more information. I agree that the older, simpler watch and warning system was better, if that's what you're saying.
        5y ago

syshum 5y ago

> it seems like when they do occur they are increasingly more damaging and closer to densely populated areas. I think this more a function of urban sprawl, and the fact there are simply more populated area spread out over larger tracts of land, thus the odds of a tornado hitting a population center increase. In short the tornadoes are not moving closer, the populated areas are what has moved

throwawayboise 5y ago

OK, that seems completely weird. I've lived in the midwest for 50 years, and have never seen a funnel cloud (I have seen the aftermath of a few).