I don't need Gary England to tell me, "this one's a killer". Every tornado situation is dangerous and every warning should be heeded. When you hear the train, it's time to get off the trax..

The problem is, since May 3rd, every tornado is a killer for all the stations. It's ridiculous. They throw warnings out for a wall cloud now as well. Argue what you want on how those are released these days, but Gary lost my respect at that point. And no, Val is not there. I had a huge amount of respect for him before that whole thing happened. He could have gained it back afterward if he hadn't hopped on the crazy bandwagon since then of making a huge deal out of everything. If they would all just back away and put things into context. Weather is weather and we accept the risk of it living here. The more you make everything out to be a big deal, the less of a big deal it is. Why do you think people weren't paying as much attention to their warnings on May 3rd? It's the age old story of the boy that cried wolf.

The station did reply back, surprising enough. Basically, they say "what you see online isn't the full truth". But based on what we see here from station contacts, i would lean more to what we see here than what the station says. The executive producer commendted that "saying anything further would be detrimental to his carreer", referencing Mr. Dunn. Sounds like a whole pile of crap to me. I got pretty much the reply I would have expected. The station distancing themselves from any responsibility and proving they are more concerned with the behind-the-scenes politics than with what goes on out in the world. They are willing to sacrifice someone that saves lives for someone that wears a suit.

I should comment a bit further on the underground thing. There is a HUGE difference between saying "try to get undergound" and "if you're not undergroup, you're going to die". How many basements have you counted in houses in OKC lately? Saferooms and Shelters have become more affordable and have gone in much more than ever, but they are still far from being in even 1/4 of the homes. I'd say they are still in less than 1/4 of NEW homes, much less existing ones. You serve no benefit but to scare the public by telling them that. Not to mention that when a tornado does go through, it usually has minimal impact. Forgive me if I sound harsh, but more often than not, you're looking at PART of a neighborhood and not a whole town. It's the quick nature of up and down tornados. Yes there are larger ones that have more staying power, like May 3rd. But you still don't help anyone out by telling them they're going to die. How about instead, offer them how to do as much as they can to protect themselves with what they have. If you dont' want them running out in the car to find an underground shelter, then their tub is probably where they are headed. At least SOME of the folks will attempt that or even offer instructions speaking to the children home alone.

I have often wished that our tv stations would put a fujita scale warning on the screen of some type. Like give us an extra heads up when they know something headed our way is an EF5.

NWS does this to some degree by issuing "tornado emergencies" in these particular cases but it's surprising how few people even know about that phrase. I freaked out when NWS issued it because the last time I heard it was on May 3rd, 1999. I have friends that it seemed to confuse more th an help though. Seems like a good example of why we need a way to denote really severe tornadoes and then need to better inform the public of what that is.

I have often wished that our tv stations would put a fujita scale warning on the screen of some type. Like give us an extra heads up when they know something headed our way is an EF5.

NWS does this to some degree by issuing "tornado emergencies" in these particular cases but it's surprising how few people even know about that phrase. I freaked out when NWS issued it because the last time I heard it was on May 3rd, 1999. I have friends that it seemed to confuse more th an help though. Seems like a good example of why we need a way to denote really severe tornadoes and then need to better inform the public of what that is.

That would just bring more confusion to the average viewer. Any tornado can be dangerous depending what structure your in. The simplest thing that people can understand is the Slight, Moderate or High severe weather system. People should supplement their local meteorologist information with official NWS information.

The simplest thing that people can understand is the Slight, Moderate or High severe weather system.

Negative. Those has nothing to do with the severity of a tornado.

Negative. Those has nothing to do with the severity of a tornado.

Well, if we were forced to measure the severity of the risk of an EF5 being in your general area, it provides some form of measurement. Especially when it comes to the difference between slight and high risks. Sure, almost anything can happen on moderate risk days. The point is no one can classify tornadoes as their happening. You can only guess based on the parameters of the day.

I have often wished that our tv stations would put a fujita scale warning on the screen of some type. Like give us an extra heads up when they know something headed our way is an EF5.

NWS does this to some degree by issuing "tornado emergencies" in these particular cases but it's surprising how few people even know about that phrase. I freaked out when NWS issued it because the last time I heard it was on May 3rd, 1999. I have friends that it seemed to confuse more th an help though. Seems like a good example of why we need a way to denote really severe tornadoes and then need to better inform the public of what that is.

The Enhanced Fujita scale is by in large a damage measuring scale. There is no way to really classify a tornado prior to seeing what it chews up. Plus, I can already see the draw backs from saying "This tornado here we are indicating it as an EF-1, and this one here and EF-4". People are going to think, "Oh it is only a One" and not take it as seriously. An EF-0 still have the ability to mess your roof up, and fling debris around that can kill.

With that said, we have a unique advantage in Central Oklahoma with the dense radar coverage from both the CASA radars along I-44 SW of OKC and also the DOWs from OU. They can help provide a rating for a tornado based on measured wind speed as they can see closer to the surface than the WSR-88Ds that are traditionally used by all forecast offices. However, they still aren't able to get actual ground level wind readings. There is the chance though that we may be heading down the path a bit more of using radar winds for ranking tornadoes as the EF-5 from a few weeks back was rated mainly on the radar wind observations, with some damage indicators (versus mostly damage). The full set of radar data though hasn't been released (from what I've seen yet) that was collected on that storm, so there is likely a significant display that allowed them to push the EF-5 rating based on the radar data.


Well, if we were forced to measure the severity of the risk of an EF5 being in your general area it provides some form of measurement. Especially when it comes to the difference between slight and high risks. Sure, almost anything can happen on moderate risk days. The point is no one can classify tornadoes as their happening. You can only guess based on the parameters of the day.

The biggest thing I think we need in this market is a return to the Slight, Moderate, and High risks and educating the public on what they mean. Channel 4, and I think 5, still use the 3 level scale that SPC and NWS does...but Channel 9 seems to do their own thing. The KWTV scale of "Severe" and "Greatest Probability" seem to more so resemble the Weather Channel scale than anything you would expect from a highly competitive, knowledgeable market. Much like the overused "Travelers Advisory" that local stations use to lump all the various sub-warning Winter Precip advisories under. To me, it dumbs the market down and doesn't help provide exact information to the public to make them aware of what could happen.

I would like to see local stations goes a step further and start showing some of the additional probability tables that SPC puts out. There are times when we can be under a Slight Risk, but there is an enhanced chance of strong tornadoes. We would never know that by just having the "Slight Risk" message relayed.

Jumping back to the Tornado Emergency messages. That is one of those situations where we ventured down a slippery slope as soon as NWS Norman put out the first one. "Oh this isn't a tornado emergency, just a regular warning, so it isn't as bad"...is the reaction we have to be worried about. The emergency wording, which is just part of the regular warning, is there to highlight a violent tornado moving into a densely populated area. However, an EF-1 or EF-2 going into a city can cause just as much havoc and injuries/death as a stronger tornado. We really just need to get back to the point where when a tornado warning is up, just taking precautions and seeking shelter. They are nothing like a hurricane where a person could ride out a Cat 1 without issue, but needs to leave the area for a Cat 3 or higher.

There is a HUGE difference between saying "try to get undergound" and "if you're not undergroup, you're going to die". You're right...there is. But on May 3rd, hiding in the bathroom wasn't going to cut it. That's the message Gary was trying to get across. There WAS no safe place in the house if you happened to be in the path of that storm.

There WAS no safe place in the house if you happened to be in the path of that storm.

Not true. Most people in the path of that storm were perfectly fine. They get rain, hail, wind, maybe some more. Just another Oklahoma storm to them. Now if we are talking about the path of that tornado, then yeah, chance of survival was very slim. :-)

Now if we are talking about the path of that tornado, then yeah, chance of survival was very slim. :-)

Yes...that's what we're talking about. The houses in Moore that got hit by that tornado were scraped clean, down to the foundation. There was no safe place inside them.

Hi venture. I thought someone would bring that argument up, and I understand it, but I just can't thinkbof it in any other light than to call it the "dark ages" approach. I guess I'll jst never agree that having more information on just about any topic, be it cancer or tornadoes, is a bad thing. That is almost like making the argument that doctors should never talk survival rates or likelihood of responsiveness to treatment because all cancers are bad and we want everyone to be equally scared out of their minds regardless of whether we're talking a minor skin lesion or something more invasive. Just seems like not a good thing to me.

The fujita scale comment is a good one but I just can't believe that meteorologists can't sometimes tell when velocities are super high and something really bad is inbound. If they can tell the difference then why not amp up the warnings a bit. I mean clearly the already agree with this concept or NWS wouldn't issue "tornado emergencies" or use their "particularly dangerous" verbiage in weather statements, it's just you have to have a Rosetta stone to decrypt meteospeak. So that being the case why not just be more clear and less cryptic? Ya know?

Maybe they should do a weather version of this that seemed to work so well......

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/09/dhs-threat1.jpg

God no. The problem with that system is that it was almost always referred to by color and no one could remember if yellow was worse than orange or vise versa or what. Add to that fact that there was no logic behind what made a situation more severe th an another, and no clear direction on what actions you were supposed to take with each level increase, and it's clear the whole thing was a waste of time.

What I am saying is clearly define a new level of warning for storms that meet certain criteria, tell people specifically what they need to do when they hear that warning (e.g. Get below ground), call the warning or show a symbol that makes it clear what kind of warning has been issued, and train people to recognize it and know what to do. Is that really such a controversial opinion? Really?

Questor well it would be nice if it was possible with current technology, but it really isn't there yet. Well it isn't that the technology isn't there, it is that we don't live on a flat rock. :-) The NSSL has a great page that helps to describe the issue with being able to see the tornadoes specifically - http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/edu/ideas/radar3.html.

To pull information from that, the tornado is typically going to be anywhere in the lowest 1 mile of the storm (well 1 mile from the ground up). So what does that mean? The radar used by NWS in Central OK (KTLX) would not be able to see below the 1 mile mark just outside the greater Oklahoma City Metro Area. However, the strongest winds are going to occur lower to the surface than that, which means the restrictions are all the greater. By the time the radar beam gets to Downtown OKC, it is already looking at 1000' up.

Yes the technology is there where we can say that a mesocyclone is extremely strong and that it could product a stronger tornado. However, there are many times where we can see extremely strong shear in a storm, and nothing is on the ground at all. So do you start blowing the "strong tornado coming!" warning when there is still a good chance nothing is even on the ground?

The Tornado Emergencies have always been accompanied by confirmed, spotter reported large tornadoes that are being witnessed doing significant damage heading to a densely populated area. They are never done based only on the radar presentation. Again, goes back to the downfall of the radar presentation not being able to see exactly what is going on at the surface. The PDS versions of the weather watches are good for highlighting situations when conditions are favorable (based on prior similar setups) for high end severe weather events. Unfortunately these are rarely relayed to the public...at least the Severe Thunderstorm version - like the one recently, even though it essentially busted out.

The other problem with getting extremely detailed on storm types, are people getting too relaxed when it isn't the "May 3rd"-type tornado coming. The way current warnings are handled are fine. It would be nice though if we saw more respect given to severe thunderstorms when it comes to the potential for wind and hail damage. I think people let their guard down a bit too much with those warnings, mainly because the severe criteria is rarely met or only met in a small portion of the storm.

There really isn't any controversy here, it is that the current system and tools in place limit how much can be relayed. We can do pretty good in getting hail estimates out there. However, wind and tornado strength estimates are always going to be limited unless we have more ground reporting from spotters, mesonets, and additional short range ground radars.

I have some simple solution for severe weather warnings.

People
1. Remind people to monitor the weather daily.
2. If storms are in the forecast, pay attention to condtions outside and check it regularly.
3. If Tornadoes, Hail, Lighting and high winds are on the way, head to shelter.
4. Don't wait until the tornado has been confirmed to go to shelter. By then it is too late.
5. Use common sense, don't panic... your chances of dying in a storm are actually pretty slim.

Weather Forecaster and Broadcasters

1. Tell people what's happening nothing more and nothing less.
2. Anyone who goes on the air should be required to stay calm.
3. If the person get's scared or excited easily, they should not be allowed to speak on tv or radio during storms.
4. When the storm is clear go back to programming. Don't waste time showing and talking about damage. Save it for the next news cast.
5. If nothing is going on, go back to programming. Don't show a dark cloud covered sky with every storm spotter giving their two cents.

Common sense should always come in to play during these storms. There is no reason for anyone to panic or anyone on tv or radio to act like a kid on a sugar high at Chuckie Cheese.

Weather Forecaster and Broadcasters

1. Tell people what's happening nothing more and nothing less.
2. Anyone who goes on the air should be required to stay calm.
3. If the person get's scared or excited easily, they should not be allowed to speak on tv or radio during storms.
5. If nothing is going on, go back to programming. Don't show a dark cloud covered sky with every storm spotter giving their two cents.
4. When the storm is clear go back to programming. Don't waste time showing and talking about damage. Save it for the next news cast.

Sounds so logical to me. But to some local weather personalities/news directors it would not sound logical.

The Tornado Emergencies have always been accompanied by confirmed, spotter reported large tornadoes that are being witnessed doing significant damage heading to a densely populated area. They are never done based only on the radar presentation. Again, goes back to the downfall of the radar presentation not being able to see exactly what is going on at the surface.For several years during the last half of the 1950s, I was the weather specialist for the Oklahoman and spent quite a bit of time with a distant cousin named Tom Kyle who headed the weather bureau station at Will Rogers Field. He's the person who told me about the hook echo, and also the person who issued the world's very first official tornado warning (after the folk out at Tinker discovered, back in 1945, the conditions necessary for a twister to form).

In those days, Tom would NEVER issue a warning or even a watch (though that term hadn't yet come into use) based purely on radar returns, for exactly the reason you mention. The storm had to be confirmed by a reliable spotter as being on the ground before any warning came from the bureau. He did, of course, use the radar return to direct spotters into the most likely areas. Ham radio operators formed the backbone of his spotting system; all were volunteers, with mobile stations in their cars, and when a storm threatened they would go into action. On at least one occasion (in 1958 on my day off; I was an active ham at the time) I operated the base station, located in the bureau's offices atop a hangar at the original Will Rogers location on the west side of the highway, while mobile spotters took a camera crew from NWS on a search for possible funnels. Looking back it was all very primitive, but even so much better than the earlier times when a storm would drop from the sky with no warning at all...

Yes...that's what we're talking about. The houses in Moore that got hit by that tornado were scraped clean, down to the foundation. There was no safe place inside them.

At the risk of sounding brash, that was also localized to basically one neighborhood in Moore as well. MOST homes in the path did not have the same experience. So in Gary's eyes and statements, everyone was going to die, that's where my problem was. I knew some folks that lived in that very neighborhood...and it did NOT wipe the foundations clean. She was right in the middle of the path in her closet. She held onto her closet rack as her feet were sucked into the air. Her closet remained intact as the rest of the house crumbled around it. He lived thank you very much. As a survivor of the storm, she would tell you that she doesn't appreciate his comments either. All it does is monger fear and helps ZERO %. Unless you lived directly in the path, you can't really speak to it. Even though I was in MWC at the time, i can't compare my experience to that of hers either. It was lifting by the time it hit MWC and was a full 2 scales lower. And that still left plenty damage.

Less here - it's a freaking tornado, F0 to F whatever, you need to be careful and pay attention. Straight line winds, microbursts, downdrafts, etc....they all can do plenty damage. Just because the house didn't come off the foundation didn't meant it wasn't a total loss either. The MWC mostly were protected as their house was lifted and slammed back down at an angle. My aunt had part of someone's roof end up in her roof. My sister, who was at Rose State at the time, had a car that look like it was plastered with an insulation gun.

There's plenty enough devestation going on in a storm like this. My point is, why make it worse by telling people they are going to die? It serves no purpose but to scare them. So the tornado is headed to your house, you have no damned underground place to go like 99% of us out there, and Gary tells you that you're going to die. Personally, I would tell him to go screw himself and I'll take my chances in the closet.

Only 48 people died on May 3rd. How many thousands in the path were NOT undergound?

My point is, why make it worse by telling people they are going to die? It serves no purpose but to scare them.
Well that's just it....did it make it worse? You have one story. There were many, many others that day who said that the "get underground" warning made all the difference to their survival. Have we had a worse tornado before or since? If you're not going to give that kind of warning in an F5, then when? Do you lie to the people and tell them not to worry? LOL

Maybe they should do a weather version of this that seemed to work so well......

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/09/dhs-threat1.jpg

Not, as it was shown to be manipulated.

So I guess you all must also be in favor of blowing the sirens across all 650 square miles of the city when a tornado clips part of Moore?

So I guess you all must also be in favor of blowing the sirens across all 650 square miles of the city when a tornado clips part of Moore?

After it clips Moore? No.
Prior to the tornado heading into the city when it's uncertain exactly what course it'll take through town? Yes...most definitely.

A tornado that has been traveling up the turnpike on a straight path from Chickasha to Moore has almost zero chance of turning due north or NW and hitting the area north and west of Lake Hefner. That would be a one in a million storm. Yet we still blow the sirens for that area when Moore is being hit every single time, even though it's just not realistic. It makes sense to me that this would be the prevailing opinion though, it kind of goes hand in hand with not wanting to change the way storm announcements are done in any way. There's sort of a prevailing "government/authority knows best and needs to protect you" mentality in this state. I give up, everything is fine and the way we've been doing business for 50 years is clearly the answer. No need to account for a complete technological and media revolution since then.

The city's siren system was replaced top to bottom eight or nine years ago. Maybe someone knows whether the sirens can be activated by sections, or if it was designed to be 'all or nothing.'

Even if they were to be activated by sections, I don't know who would make the decision about which ones are turned on and which ones aren't.

A tornado that has been traveling up the turnpike on a straight path from Chickasha to Moore has almost zero chance of turning due north or NW and hitting the area north and west of Lake Hefner. That would be a one in a million storm. Yet we still blow the sirens for that area when Moore is being hit every single time, even though it's just not realistic. It makes sense to me that this would be the prevailing opinion though, it kind of goes hand in hand with not wanting to change the way storm announcements are done in any way. There's sort of a prevailing "government/authority knows best and needs to protect you" mentality in this state. I give up, everything is fine and the way we've been doing business for 50 years is clearly the answer. No need to account for a complete technological and media revolution since then.

Seems like a sour grapes response, but I'll comment on it regardless. There are many times when a storm's movement can be very erratic. You are right that typically a storm heading for Moore likely won't swing back and head to NW OK. However, there are times when you can get a storm that develops a left split and that cell could intensify. Of course the original storm has a higher chance of right turning and heading further East or SE.

If the concern is local EMs blowing the sirens for too much of their city, that will probably change more and more. Norman did a completely upgrade and deployed an entirely new siren system over the winter. They have the ability to only warn sections of the city based on storm movement and the warning polygon from the NWS. The main reason for this is to avoid situations like you describe. Some people may not realize, but Norman city limits go from the Canadian River to the west all to way to almost the Pottawatomie County line to the east. It includes all of Lake Thunderbird and every place in between. That's 178 square miles of land that Norman itself is responsible for (48th largest city in the US by land area).

So a lot of your assumptions aren't correct as there are changes in the works to make warnings more accurate and specific for areas, especially when it comes to the outdoor warning systems.

There's sort of a prevailing "government/authority knows best and needs to protect you" mentality in this state.

You're right. The NWS should just shut the h*ll up and let people go out and see for themselves if the weather warrants taking precautions.

I'm not sure which assumptions aren't correct. OKC has had the ability to sound sirens in sections for something like 10 years now but I don't believe they have ever once used that capability. It's great that Norman has added that ability as well... hope they decide to actually use it some day. I don't understand why they wouldn't... sure storms are unpredictable, but I can think of so many times where we had a very isolated, single storm that really had no chance of going anywhere but where it was headed and yet we still sounded the sirens for the entire city. I guess my fear is that we are constantly 'crying wolf' by doing what we do and it makes people numb to the sirens. Everyone worries about the opposite problem, but no one ever talks about the crying wolf problem. You'll have to forgive my sour grapes response. It's hard to believe but I tend to get irritated after getting crapped on from all sides for ten posts. The additional warning discussion that devolved into terrorist threat level examples and all that is a great example. The military has employed five levels of "Threat Cons" (that describe anti-terror/anti-threat base fortification levels) for years that have worked very well, do not cause confusion, and are very clear in the type of response to be evoked with each new level. I understand the desire to leave well enough alone but the response I got from most on this site, that folks just aren't smart enough to deal with one new level, is just a really bad argument since the military's system proves otherwise. I think the real argument is over not making things overly complex and making sure that warnings are clear and concise, which I totally agree with and do not think that adding an additional level of warning would violate that thought process. In fact I think that what we have today is already convoluted. We only have watches and warnings that go out to the general public yet NWS routinely has a list of their own nomenclature that they use that means a lot more to meteorologists and storm chasers. The lay person unfortunately is lost as it is like trying to decipher the words of Allen Greenspan and all we are left with is "keep an eye out" or "OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!" So all I'm really saying is that I think the problem is already there and that we should do something to clarify things, that's all. If folks don't agree with that that's fine. Not so much yours but I viewed the other guys response as so flippant as to be insulting. Everybody has different ideas, people disagree, that's fine, I just found the responses overly negative and childish. Sorry if I responded in kind. I suppose that's just the way it is on message boards.

Yes, they announced the siren's selective capabilities in The Oklahoman back then, as well as their abilities to sound different tones as well as broadcast speech. They're really gigantic speakers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvjkxVZfyY8

Yes, they announced the siren's selective capabilities in The Oklahoman back then, as well as their abilities to sound different tones as well as broadcast speech. They're really gigantic speakers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvjkxVZfyY8

That's a great example. I'm all for technological innovation. So I think it's a great thing that these sirens can blow for selective areas, can generate all sorts of different tones, and can even act as a loudspeaker. These are great capabilities. Why aren't we using them?

That's really my only point when it comes to stuff like this. If we know more about storms now, then why don't we try to convey more information about them? If we have better technology today that can deliver differentiating alert levels, then why don't we use them?

I mean at the end of the day I'm already doing that for me. I have mobile devices and radios that have specific SAME codes set in them. I know how to get to websites that have real time radar data and can generate storm tracks. I know what frequency the storm chaser's WeatherNet is broadcast on. I can get the information I want, and it is way better than anything I have ever seen on TV. I don't understand why we wouldn't want to welcome our media to the 21st Century as well. I guess I'll shut up now.

duplicate

I guess it just depends on how much more in depth you think we can possibly go. Tornado Warning is pretty clear...either a spotter reported tornado or storm exhibiting signs of strong rotation that could product any moment. Pretty clear cut. It has the "PDS"-like upscale wording of "Tornado Emergency" for when densely populated areas may get impacted. If a tornado is reported, by spotters, to be a large - descructive - wedge - whatever - tornado, then the wording gets passed along in the warning as well.

The current system already has multi-levels for what you are using as examples:

1 - Tornado Warning / Tornado Emergency
2 - Severe Thunderstorm Warning
3 - Significant Weather Advisory
4 - PDS Watches
5 - Standard Watches

Out of all of those, the Severe Thunderstorm Warning is really the only thing that comes to mind that could use some tweaks. Too often we get the warnings on a storm that will only provide gusts of 55-60 mph (58 mph is severe) with littler to no hail or anything else. At the end of the day, this doesn't really get any ones attention and could just continue to have people ignore the SVR warnings unless it is right on top of them.

It used to be that a Tornado Warning meant that an actual tornado was spotted or indicated on radar. Now it seems to mean that conditions are favorable (that is what a Tornado Watch was for). When did it change?

I guess it just depends on how much more in depth you think we can possibly go. Tornado Warning is pretty clear...either a spotter reported tornado or storm exhibiting signs of strong rotation that could product any moment. Pretty clear cut. It has the "PDS"-like upscale wording of "Tornado Emergency" for when densely populated areas may get impacted. If a tornado is reported, by spotters, to be a large - descructive - wedge - whatever - tornado, then the wording gets passed along in the warning as well.

The current system already has multi-levels for what you are using as examples:

1 - Tornado Warning / Tornado Emergency
2 - Severe Thunderstorm Warning
3 - Significant Weather Advisory
4 - PDS Watches
5 - Standard Watches

Out of all of those, the Severe Thunderstorm Warning is really the only thing that comes to mind that could use some tweaks. Too often we get the warnings on a storm that will only provide gusts of 55-60 mph (58 mph is severe) with littler to no hail or anything else. At the end of the day, this doesn't really get any ones attention and could just continue to have people ignore the SVR warnings unless it is right on top of them.

Good information, as always from you.

Question: What exactly does "PDS" stand for? I've been sitting here thinking and it seems like I remember Gary England saying it was "Particularly Dangerous Storm." Is that right or was he being colloquial?

It used to be that a Tornado Warning meant that an actual tornado was spotted or indicated on radar. Now it seems to mean that conditions are favorable (that is what a Tornado Watch was for). When did it change?

I'm going to assume this is sarcasm since it is still done that way.


Good information, as always from you.

Question: What exactly does "PDS" stand for? I've been sitting here thinking and it seems like I remember Gary England saying it was "Particularly Dangerous Storm." Is that right or was he being colloquial?

PDS = Particularly Dangerous Situation

SPC provides this info on it in their FAQ:

2.7 I noticed the wording "THIS IS A PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS SITUATION" in some of your watches. What does this mean? What is the criteria for a PDS watch?

The "particularly dangerous situation" wording is used in rare situations when long-lived, strong and violent tornadoes are possible. This enhanced wording may also accompany severe thunderstorm watches for exceptionally intense and well organized convective wind storms. PDS watches are issued, when in the opinion of the forecaster, the likelihood of significant events is boosted by very volatile atmospheric conditions. Usually this decision is based on a number of atmospheric clues and parameters, so the decision to issue a PDS watch is subjective. There is no hard threshold or criteria. In high risk outlooks PDS watches are issued most often.

This is basically the "airplane vs car" argument or in this case "car vs house" argument. Assuming your house is a solid structure bolted to a foundation, 95% of the time your safer in the center part of your house than fleeing from the tornado in your car if you don't have a storm shelter. May 3rd was rare in that people in south Oklahoma City had the opportunity to drive away because that tornado was on the ground for a long time before reaching the southern parts of the metro.

I guess those people who are worried about <5% or live in a mobile home need to build a storm shelter, find a friend with one, or take the day off and flee west to the other side of the dry line before the storms fire. LOL

I'm going to assume this is sarcasm since it is still done that way
Wasn't being sarcastic at all. Have seen it several times this year on all 3 of the local stations. After putting up the graphic with the Tornado WARNING, often the weather person will say something to the effect that "a tornado has NOT been sighted/confirmed/touched down and one is NOT indicated on radar" just that it could happen.

Again, it was my understanding that is what a Tornado WATCH was for..."conditions are favorable" it could happen.

A Tornado WARNING meant that one has touched down/spotted/confirmed and/or verified by radar.

They have been doing the same with other "warnings" (like flash flood), no flash flood has happened just a pretty good chance of it (which means it should be a "watch")

AMEN Larry. They throw out Tornado Warning so often now, it almost doesn't mean anything. Back when it meant there actaully was a tornado, it meant something. Now as soon as the clouds start spinning, out pops a warning. It's yet another "boy who cried wolf" case coming up. All this crap started after May 3rd. It's like after that, all weathermen decided that the world had to change and every storm had to be 10 times worse than they even were before then. The more technology they throw at things, the more they realize they don't know jack crap still so they make everything into a bigger deal than it is.

We have plenty lead time on things now, there really does need to be a middle ground between a watch and a warning. Throw something in there that says, "hey, conditions are favorable for a tornado right here in this area so watch out. We haven't seen one come down yet, but there's a high chance one might happen so go ahead and get ready for it". That way when one does come down, you know it's for real. I wont say I ignore tornado warnings anymore because that's not true (and would be very stupid if I did), but they definitely don't hold the same importance they once did....and it's the fault of the weathermen for that.

I will say, you have to place blame on ALL fronts as well. The National Weather Service is where these warnings are issued from, not the TV stations. The stations just report (and dramatise) the situation. It's very rare that you'll see them discover something before the NWS on radar. Remember the NWS has the better toys, they just don't have the foot soldiers.

Okay this is a bit off course now. Larry from your post I started to understand what you meant, a bit. From what I've observed, I have seen the TV STATIONS come out and say "Tornado Warning" when one of their spotters have either seen a brief tornado or when they think a tornado could form at any time based on the radar presentation. I've never seen the NWS just toss them out with out any verifiable indicators - at least from the Norman office. I won't get into Flash Flood right now because those can be very subjective to specific areas of a city/county based on previous flood history and the amount of estimated precip that has fallen. There are plenty of times when a Flash Flood warning can be put up for Cleveland County, but it really only is noticed in a few parts of Norman that turn into a lake after a sprinkle.

To Bomber's comments - I agree local media has gone a bit crazy lately. It is a mass ratings drive that spurs a lot of it though. We already have a middle ground between watch and warning, it is called a "Severe Weather Statement" or "Special Weather Statement". Both of these are used, the 2nd one is usually broadcast with the language "Significant Weather Advisory" that is meant to alert counties when a storm is getting stronger but not yet severe. The local stations relay this as "Heavy Thunderstorm" on their maps.

I will disagree with the point that you can place any blame on the NWS for this. Are their warnings that shouldn't be issued? Perhaps, but they don't pull the trigger unless that forecaster feels that a storm are reached a threshold that requires warning. I also completely disagree with the point on "they just don't have the foot soldiers". The NWS has more eyes on the ground than all the local media combined. The vast network of Skywarn and amateur radio operators that relay information back to the Norman NWS is substantial. That is why you can watch a radar presentation show very strong signs of rotation or large hail, and no warning comes out because they have eyes on the ground near that storm and are waiting for ground verification before they pull the trigger. Does this mean that local TV stations don't see something before the NWS/Skywarn team? Not at all. Many cases of a media chaser catching a brief tornado after being in the right place at the right time.

I don't the storms should be used as a last minute warning like many people think it should be. If anything a siren activation should mean, go to an information source that will advise you on weather and other alerts. If it does not effect you, go back to whatever your doing. That is exactly what I do. Most of us live in work in somewhat sound proof structures where a storm siren sounds like somebody running the vacuum in the next room. The sirens should not be used for severe weather only they should be used for any kind of emergency. Gas leak, Chemical Spill, explosives attack, mad gunman on the loose, godzilla invading the city, etc. etc.

Thanks Venture, think we are on the same page now...

And thanks Bomber for at least seeing the same thing too (I wasn't imagining it)...

Agree with what 1-4-1 is saying and that is how I use the siren...get to a radio or tv and find out if I need to run for cover!

"Gary, we've got a major thread derailment over here on the internet at OKCtalk, you might want to declare it a PDS...Mason Dunn, Ranger Nine, back to you."

Per The Lost Ogle (http://www.thelostogle.com/2011/07/28/jim-gardner-is-moving-to-channel-9/#more-16924)

Well, it looks like some helicopter drama is unfolding over the Oklahoma City metro.

We have learned that Bob Moore Chopper 4 pilot Jim Gardner will be leaving Channel 4 to take over the piloting duties for Channel 9. Gardner will be replacing Mason Dunn who was fired in June.

Here’s an email sent by Channel 9′s Todd Spessard to employees earlier today:

From: “Spessard, Todd”
Date: July 28, 2011 10:31:58 AM CDT
To: Griffin Communications – All Staff
Subject: SkyNews 9 HD Pilot Announcement

Hello all, I’m pleased and excited to let you know that Jim Gardner will be joining Oklahoma’s Own News 9 as the full time pilot of SkyNews 9 HD. Jim will bring more than 25 years of experience to News 9 and has won numerous Emmy Awards for his piloting and reporting including his coverage of the May 3rd 1999 Tornados and 2003 Oklahoma City Tornados. Jim got his start in California working in film and photo work and then became the morning pilot for KCAL where he covered numerous stories including the LA riots, earthquakes, wild fires, flooding, mudslides and the O.J. Simpson chase.

Jim and I have had several conversations over the past few weeks and I can tell you that he is very excited to make the move. Jim will make a great addition to our team. Jim is currently under contract with KFOR—so his start date with us is TBA. In the meantime, we have an active plan to make sure we are covered when it comes to flying. Thanks—and holler with questions.

Cheers,Todd

Todd Spessard
Director, PM Content

Also, here’s a snippet of an email sent to News 9 advertisers by an advertising account executive for Channel 9. It shows how News 9 is already spinning the situation to the people who really matter…their advertisers:

You may have noticed that our helicopter has been grounded for a short time. We are really happy about hiring this new pilot who already has a great reputation in the Oklahoma City Market, and brings with him the best experience a pilot can have, when it comes to covering news stories. This will translate to higher viewership, higher ratings, more people watching our news. We are proud to acquire the best news helicopter pilot in the country, and we will have him on board shortly.

We’ll have more on this story later, but here are some quick questions:

• Are there any legal ramifications to this? For example, is Channel 9 allowed to negotiate with someone who is under contract with a local competitor?

• What are the odds that Mason Dunn replaces Jim Gardener at Channel 4?

• What does Gary England think about this?

Let us know in the comments.

Not really shocked to be honest. I would almost assume Mason gets hired by Channel 4 at this time, if he is still in town and looking.

I also expect that Channel 9 will make a play for either Mike or Rick when Gary retires.

I will personally guarantee [you, or anyone else] that anytime you see an email begining with . . .

"Hello all, I’m pleased and excited . . ."

And ending with:

. . . . "Cheers"

Everything in between is [bovine fertilizer].

I guess that the state of media middle-management in Oklahoma--and most likely everywhere else--is even more sorry and insipid than I previously believed.

KWTV's ratings will still stink. I like Jim Gardner but trust me he doesn't "make" Channel 4. Plus I don't see his energetic, almost hyperventalating meshing up with Gary's style. He will regret this move once they make him fly 12 hours straight looking at clouds.

And yes KFOR is probably typing up Mason Dunn's contract right now. With all this moving around things are going to be awkward at the next Ogle Family BBQ.

"With all this moving around things are going to be awkward at the next Ogle Family BBQ."

Perfection.

(I woulda PM'd that there, but I ain't figgured out that there function yet...)

...

(I woulda PM'd that there, but I ain't figgured out that there function yet...)


For you, and others. One way is to place your cursor on the person's name and then left click

Box opens

Scroll down to Private message link in the box. Click

New screen opens.

Enter PM message title

Enter PM message text

Scroll down and click Submit message button.

I am shocked and disappointed in his mistake on moving to KWTV.

Thank you, Kevin.

That sounds a whole lot easier than flying a helicopter in and around thunderstorms for [over] [twelve] hours and then, after landing, having to deal with some over-amped--"excited"--pinhead in a suit, about whether you were doing enough for the company while he is texting someone else entirely about an entirely different matter. (There's "Multi-Tasking" and then there is flying helicopters. =)

I guess since Mason is out of a job, and Jim Gardner is now his replacement......wouldn't it be logical for Mason to move to NewsChannel 4? Love Jim Gardner, but do not care for Gary England.

NOOOO!!!!!! Why Jim why!?!?!?!

I know the underlying motives for his move. I dont blame him for the decision. Just will be a shame to not see him around the station


when the Bob Moore contract is up it may be curtains for 4's chopper

I know the underlying motives for his move. I dont blame him for the decision. Just will be a shame to not see him around the station


when the Bob Moore contract is up it may be curtains for 4's chopper

Care to share what the "underlying motives" are???

He got a better deal. business pure and simple

• Are there any legal ramifications to this? For example, is Channel 9 allowed to negotiate with someone who is under contract with a local competitor?

I can't think of any.

Wow...all I can think of is "that's a hell of a lot of money to pay to cover up the screw-up of a new news director!" Jim will do well wherever he lands. If Ch. 4 were smart (and they are), they'd be picking up the contract on Mason Dunn before the ink is dry on Jim Gardner's new deal with Ch. 9. I think Ch. 4 will come out the winner on this thing and Ch. 9 will continue to show the poor decision-making that has landed them in 3rd place in the ratings.

As much as I don't really care for the Morgan hype machine, I really enjoy Mason's reporting during storm coverage. Always very calm and no fluff. It might finally be the end of watching 9 during severe weather.

You would think Channel 9 would push to make other changes to improve their ratings. Perhaps staffing their on camera news crew with ditzy bimbos isn't the way to go that would find it difficult to get a weekend reporter gig in a larger market.

It's been awhile, but Mason Dunn parked his truck on the Channel 9's helipad (against corporate policy and in defiance of common sense), forgot about it, and then pushed the helicopter into his truck (the helo was on wheels). It was going to be a double ass-kicking if he got caught (the parking infraction plus dinging their helicopter), so he ordered parts to repair the damage and didn't tell anyone. As he was waiting for them to arrive - sure enough - severe weather came in. "Mason - get in the air!" But he couldn't because the helicopter was grounded. So you can imagine the news director dealing with incoming severe weather, and then finding out that Mason broke the helicopter and tried to cover it up.

Incidentally, he isn't licensed to perform repair work on helicopters, so he was about to knowingly violate federal regulations by making the repairs, and even more regulations by flying an improperly-serviced aircraft.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

If Channel 4 wants to hire a guy with a recent history of snowballing judgmental errors, go right ahead. I'd only ask that he keep the helicopter away from my neighborhood.

OKT'r:
I honestly think that your post needs to appear on (or in) The Wikipedia Version of Events and History.
(No snark was involved nor injured in the typing of the sentence immediately preceeding this one. =)

Is there an Award for : Excellence in Virtual StoryTelling?