Transcript A Comparative Analysis of Severe Weather Warnings in the

A COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS OF SEVERE
WEATHER WARNINGS IN
THE CONTINENTAL
UNITED STATES
Rachel Reeves
Jennifer Tate
Aaron
Treadway
Harold Brooks,
NSSL
http://weather.ou.edu/~warnstats/
[email protected]
Kim Klockow,
OU
RESEARCH / DEVELOPMENT TOPIC
• Do different Weather Forecast
Offices (WFOs) warn storms
differently?
• Did the switch from county-based
warnings to polygon-based
warnings change forecast quality?
GOALS
• Primary Goals:
o
o
o
Quantify size, shape, length of warning & lead
times of warnings
Compute statistics to determine forecast quality
Analyze warning text for various selected storms
• End Goal:
o
Compare the above results for different WFOs
PLAN OF ATTACK
•
•
•
Use IEM Cow to collect data on all warnings
and local storm reports (LSRs) from 20052012
Analyze collected data and compare by WFO
and year
Compare warning text of storms that
crossed WFO boundaries
MAP OF WFOS
MOTIVATION
KSGF (Springfield) and KLZK (Little Rock) issue different warning types on the same storm
Photo from 1/29/13 22:33Z
Courtesy of David Goines
IMPORTANCE OF PROJECT
•
•
•
Forecasters in adjacent WFOs should have
an idea of how WFOs around them warn
Consistency between WFOs is important
for the public's understanding of warnings
Discrepancies between WFOs may warrant
further research
REFERENCES
 B r o o k s , H . E . , 2 0 0 4 : To r n a d o - wa r n i n g p e r f o r ma n c e i n t h e p a s t a n d f u t ur e : a
p e r s p e c t iv e f r o m s i g n a l d ete c t io n t h e o r y. B u l l . A m e r. M e te o r. S o c . , 8 5 , 8 37 - 8 4 3 .
 C a l l , D . A . , 2 0 0 9 : A n a s s e s s m e n t o f n a t i o n al w e a t h e r s e r v i c e w a r n i n g p r o c e d ur e s
f o r i c e s to r m s . We a . Fo r e c a s t i n g , 24 , 1 0 4 – 1 2 0 .
 H o e k s t r a , S . , H . B r o o k s , J . B r o t z g e , S . E r i c k s o n , K . K l o c kow, a n d R . R i l ey, 2 01 0 : A
p r e l i m in a r y l o o k a t t h e s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i ve o f w a r n - o n - fo r e c a s t: p r e f e r r e d to r n a d o
w a r n i n g l e a d t i m e a n d t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c ’s p e r c e p t io n s o f w e a t h e r r i s k s . We a .
C l i m a te S o c . , 3 , 1 2 8 - 1 4 0 .
 H o i um , D e b r a K . , A . J . R i o r d a n , J . M o n a h a n , K . K . Ke ete r, 1 9 97: S ev e r e
T h u n d e r s to r m a n d To r n a d o Wa r n i n g s a t R a l e i g h , N o r t h C a r o l i n a . B u l l . A m e r. M e te o r.
S o c . , 7 8 , 2 5 5 9 – 2 57 5 .
 Ro e b b e r, P. J . a n d L . F. B o s a r t , 1 9 9 6 : T h e c o m p lex r e l a t i o n s h i p b et w e e n f o r e c a s t
s k i l l a n d f o r ec a s t v a l u e : a r e a l - wo r ld a n a l y s i s . We a . Fo r e c a s t i n g , 1 1 , 5 4 4 – 5 5 9 .
 Ro e b b e r, P. J . , L . F. B o s a r t , 1 9 9 6 : T h e C o n t r i b ut io n s o f E d u c a t io n a n d E x p e r i e n c e to
Fo r e c a s t S k i l l . We a . Fo r e c a s t i n g , 1 1 , 21 – 4 0 .
 Ro e b b e r, P. J . , L . F. B o s a r t , G . S . Fo r b e s , 1 9 9 6 : D o e s D i s t a n c e f r o m t h e Fo r e c a s t
S i te A f f ec t S k i l l ? . We a . Fo r e c a s t i n g , 1 1 , 5 8 2 – 5 8 9 .
 Ro e b b e r, P. J . , 2 0 0 9 : V i s u a l i z i n g m u l t ip l e m e a s u r e s o f f o r ec a s t q u a l i t y. We a .
Fo r e c a s t i n g , 24 , 6 01 – 6 0 8 .