Who said the instrumentation was only installed to serve political concerns or that it is only ever about politics?

All I've seen for the last page or so is how politics affects everything. So, the question stands, do these early warning systems save lives or not? Simple question.

 

They save lives after the fact.

I'll bet they tested the Early Warning System every week.

 

After what fact? For me and my neighbors who live in nearly constant threat of the destructive power of tornados, these warning systems are life savers. We've been through this many times, and we lose very few lives. A big part of the reason is because we have early warning systems installed in our neighborhoods, as well as the National Weather Service, who issues warnings over TV radio and internet. For that reason, I have to say that it is incorrect to say the government doesn't help people plan. No matter if you think you know what's in their heart, these systems have saved lives. Also, they have helped plan for emergency shelters in the communities and other emergency services. Some people are alive because of these systems and services. No they don't always get it right. No they aren't always efficient. However, there is wide agreement in my community that these provisions are a great benefit to those within the community.

As for the rest of the thread, I propose it be left as it is. Someone always wants to have posts removed when they disagree, but when a member starts a thread in off-topic, (s)he takes a chance that not everyone is going to agree. There has been just as much time devoted to discussion aimed at convincing readers the practice is completely safe as discussions about the risks.

 

They were not installed until it was found to have tornados in the area. That is after the fact. What is the warning time prior to tornado touchdown? Zero. Every tornado must touch down and a relative course and speed is needed to provide the necessary warning. Again, after the fact.

You have moments to move to shelter.

Do I wish everyone can be saved? Sure do. I would be an idiot to expect there are no dangers living in a tornado area and the "government" is there to protect us from mother nature. Like everything else, there are various levels of danger associated with storm clouds "capable" of producing tornados. You know them well. You take different actions based on them.

Do you cast a weary eye to the west to look at the weather? I always do in this area.

After the fact. A lot of those facts occurred before you and I were born.

 

There has been just as much time devoted to discussion aimed at convincing readers the practice is completely safe as discussions about the risks.

No one has used the phrase "completely safe" with respect to fracking. Nothing is "completely safe".

There are too many people jumping on fracking as the cause of those earthquakes without considering the possibility of a fault line in the equation.

"Completely safe" is a pipedream, in any endeavor. They all are completely safe until they aren't.

 

As for the rest of the thread, I propose it be left as it is. Someone always wants to have posts removed when they disagree, but when a member starts a thread in off-topic, (s)he takes a chance that not everyone is going to agree. There has been just as much time devoted to discussion aimed at convincing readers the practice is completely safe as discussions about the risks.

Well when you own the bus you do get to decide who rides and why!

I'm not shutting things down or having anything deleted yet. As long as credible data and reference links keep coming in I have no problem with some degree of thread drift and I find the earthquake stuff to be rather relevant at this point.

Storm warning systems and politics behind such systems not so much but if you started your own thread on it I would likely follow along without complaint.
Fair enough?

 

Every tornado must touch down and a relative course and speed is needed to provide the necessary warning. Again, after the fact.

A tornado does not have to touch down before the necessary warnings are provided. Many times, the warning has come well before touchdown. That's the whole idea of "Early Warning Systems"

Do you cast a weary eye to the west to look at the weather? I always do in this area

The majority of severe storms that produce tornados around these parts roll over us at night. We receives early warnings for storms as far away as Mississippi. We typically get the sirens when the storm is still 15 - 20 miles to the west. The preparation is usually the same, seek shelter. Those who think they don't need to take this kind of precaution sometimes don't live to regret it.

 

Well when you own the bus you do get to decide who rides and why!

My comments were directed to any moderators who might be reading. I care little about what other members think they can have removed.

 

No one has used the phrase "completely safe" with respect to fracking. Nothing is "completely safe".

I didn't say anyone used that actual phrase. I said the discussions intended to convince readers the practice was completely safe. Let's take things in context; I'm referring to the risks of earthquakes, water contamination and the like.

 

All I've seen for the last page or so is how politics affects everything. So, the question stands, do these early warning systems save lives or not? Simple question.

And the answer to the simple question tells you... what? Whether they save lives or not says very little as to whether political considerations played a major role in their development. A better question would be whether, however many lives they may or may not save, would they save significantly more if political considerations had played less of a role? That is anything but a simple question.

As for whether they save lives to begin with, for most systems that is not a simple question, either. How do you tally a life saved? How do you account for someone that is killed because they failed to take early precautions since they figured the warning system would notify them in plenty of time? Do you count the person that took shelter as soon as they heard the siren as a life saved, even though that person would have taken shelter a few minutes later anyway?

While it's going to vary depending on the event in question (earthquake, tsunami, tornado, wildfire, flash flood, etc., etc), my understanding is that most systems presently offer marginal net benefit. They've got a lot working against them, part of which is just the inherently chaotic nature of most of these events to begin with. Another part is the short time scales that most of them have to contend with. Yet another is the human factors associated with the high false alarm rates exhibited by most of these systems -- which has it's own toll associated with it.

 

And the answer to the simple question tells you... what? Whether they save lives or not says very little as to whether political considerations played a major role in their development. A better question would be whether, however many lives they may or may not save, would they save significantly more if political considerations had played less of a role? That is anything but a simple question.

Actually, it is very simple. It's not a matter of if political considerations played a major role. I don't care about that. And whether or not some people ignore the warnings and perish as a result doesn't changed the fact that for many, early warnings are a lifesaver, for those who actually do take precautions. People do generally learn to pay attention to warnings and make preparations, at least people in my community do. That is one reason we've lost very few people even though we've had major destruction from natural events in the last few years. Some of the same people may have survived without making the preparations, but they have a much better chance when the do.

 

Actually, it is very simple. It's not a matter of if political considerations played a major role. I don't care about that. And whether or not some people ignore the warnings and perish as a result doesn't changed the fact that for many, early warnings are a lifesaver, for those who actually do take precautions. People do generally learn to pay attention to warnings and make preparations, at least people in my community do. That is one reason we've lost very few people even though we've had major destruction from natural events in the last few years. Some of the same people may have survived without making the preparations, but they have a much better chance when the do.

So how do you decide whether or not a person survived because of the warning?

 

Well you can try this experiment. Stand inside a building that's being demolished. Then stand inside a safe shelter while a building is being demolished. See when scenario gets you more injured or dead. Being warned and seeking shelter is much more safe than the alternative or doing nothing special. Its unusual for people who make it to a storm shelter to be injured or killed by the storm. Not saying it doesn't happen or those who don't make it always get killed. Saying someone has a better chance of surviving when they take precautions.

I think it's pretty clear to most everyone else that a person's chance of survival increases with the proper warnings and preparations. I won't continue to beat the horse to death. The thread is running the risk of being split, and I don't want to take any more chances as we've gone considerably off topic. I won't respond to any more questions about warnings, sheltering, stroms or disaster services, but feel free to PM me if you need a response, or start a new thread.

 

Find a fault line, pump a few million gallons of slippery water into it, and rock and roll.

 

My personal opinion on fracking and artificially triggering earthquakes is that having dozens to even hundreds of small less threatening events over a length of time is far better than having them build up into one or two large scale natural events.

That said the biggest problems with us influencing nature in this ways is the overall lack of proper understanding and knowledge that the media and the general public have on this.

To them the majority see that any earthquake is bad and man made or influenced at a much smaller scales and done many times over to reduce the overall potential energy being stored is still bad because its still an earthquake just the same.

In the electrical sense which would you prefer? To be exposed to a KWH worth of electrical energy in the form of a 100 watt light bulb being in a room with out for 10 hours or a single lighting strike expending the same KWH of energy in the same room over a period of a few seconds?

Personally I will take the small exposure over a long time period any day!

 

Well you can try this experiment. Stand inside a building that's being demolished. Then stand inside a safe shelter while a building is being demolished. See when scenario gets you more injured or dead. Being warned and seeking shelter is much more safe than the alternative or doing nothing special. Its unusual for people who make it to a storm shelter to be injured or killed by the storm. Not saying it doesn't happen or those who don't make it always get killed. Saying someone has a better chance of surviving when they take precautions.

That makes almost no comparative sense at all.

With a storm warning they cover huge areas and no one knows exactly if or when or where any form of real danger will take place. We have national weather service warnings on TV all the time here as well and none of them are the least bit specific to where or what may happen.

Typically they read something like this, "The following counties towns/cities are under a severe weather watch advisory from time period X until Time prido Y." followed by a list of the counties and towns plus a description of what to be on the watch for and possibly be prepared for which is basically the same as the public warning and address systems in the urban areas say as well.

Personally I find them minorly helpful if I am at home watching TV which is rare. The rest of the time I have to use common observation of the weather around me and of what I can see coming over the horizon and act accordingly from that.

As for human live saved that again all comes down to the actual persons decisions to take the warning advice or not and whether they have put any forward thought and preparation into what to do if such and event were to happen directly around them.

My vote for the early warning systems are they are convenient and a helpful reminder but as for saving lives that part still comes down to the preparedness of the individual which if they were prepared and alert to begin with makes the early warning systems largely pointless.

 

Watches, Warnings, and a nice historical fact.

from: http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/the-difference-between-tornado-1/61817
"A watch is issued when conditions are favorable, for example, either for a severe thunderstorm or tornadoes," AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist Dan Kottlowski said. "It doesn't mean severe weather is imminent."

"Typical watches cover about 25,000 square miles, or about half the size of Iowa," according to the SPC.

from: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/
What was the first successful tornado forecast? Nobody knows when was the first time someone claimed a tornado would occur in an area, and it happened. But the first documented, successful tornado forecast by meteorologists was on March 25, 1948, by Air Force Capt. (later Col.) Robert Miller and Major Ernest Fawbush. After they noticed striking similarities in the developing weather pattern to others which produced tornadoes (including the Tinker AFB, OK, tornado several days before), Fawbush and Miller advised their superior officer of a tornado threat in central Oklahoma that evening. Compelled from above to issue a yes/no decision on a tornado forecast after thunderstorms developed in western Oklahoma, they put out the word of possible tornadoes, and the base carried out safety precautions. A few hours later, despite the tiny odds of a repeat, the second tornado in five days directly hit the base.

So they guessed right when they had to make a decision. Imagine how they would have been treated if they were wrong.

from: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/severeweather/ww.shtml
Tornado Watch: Be Prepared! Tornadoes are possible in and near the watch area. Review and discuss your emergency plans and check supplies and your safe room. Be ready to act quickly if a warning is issued or you suspect a tornado is approaching. Acting early helps to save lives! Watches are issued by the Storm Prediction Center for counties where tornadoes may occur. The watch area is typically large, covering numerous counties or even states.

Tornado Warning: Take Action! A tornado has been sighted or indicated by weather radar. There is imminent danger to life and property. Move to an interior room on the lowest floor of a sturdy building. Avoid windows. If in a mobile home, a vehicle, or outdoors, move to the closest substantial shelter and protect yourself from flying debris. Warnings are issued by your local forecast office. Warnings typically encompass a much smaller area (around the size of a city or small county) that may be impacted by a tornado identified by a forecaster on Radar or by a trained spotter/law enforcement who is watching the storm.

After the fact ... Tornado warning ... once one is spotted or there is compelling evidence observed by the weather person using the Doppler radar. The first radar was at what became the NSSL in Norman Oklahoma in 1964.

Yes the measurements and predictions got better since 1948. Yes, we seen "more" tornadoes since there is more radar data.

Yes, you can correlate the monitoring and increased known activities. The same can be said with earthquake detection.

Yes, I am thankful that some heeded the warnings and sought safety. Katrina demonstrated clearly that some advice is best heeded. It was a long time between 1964's Hurricane (Betsy - I believe) that took out NOLA and Katrina ... and the population grew complacent.

I've yet to hear one cow in western Oklahoma/west Texas moo about an earthquake on Facebook, Twitter, or the evening news. I sometimes wonder how many earthquakes or Tornadoes hit the XIT ranch in West Texas when it was 2.5 million acres. I wonder how many were "detected"?

 

Tornadoes can be detected by Doppler radar before they touch down, so in most cases, there is time for families to make their preparations. So there's no 'after the fact' because people can move to their safe place before they are hit with a damaging event. In the majority of many tornadoes in my town over the last 10 years, warnings have come at least 10 - 20 minutes before the tornado struck any buildings or populated areas. But the warnings can come much earlier too. A couple years ago, a tornado passed just a few miles from my house. It was a small on, but it did some damage. I got the first warning about 45 minutes ahead of time. After the tornado passed by, it continued tracking east for another 20 -25 minutes. I actually watched live video of it as it tore through some power lines. Doing the math, people who experienced the event after it passed by my house had up to 1:05 - 1:10 to get prepared . So I'd say the warnings are before the fact.

There have been plenty of complaints from people living in Oklahoma about earthquakes in their area. There are almost 4 million people living in the state, and over a million in the Oklahoma City area.

Much like the early warning systems, seismographic data can help people to plan for deal with these hazzards, natural and man-made.

That makes almost no comparative sense at all.

It makes perfect sense, because that's exactly what can happen during a tornado, for instance. Only difference is, total destruction can happen in an instant.

Yes, you can correlate the monitoring and increased known activities. The same can be said with earthquake detection

Then why don't we see that everywhere there is increased monitoring? And why is the numbers still increasing, even though there have been much more monintoring in place? And when I say increasing, I'm talking about relative large events 3.0 and higher. You can't tell me there is an increased capability to detect these larger events each year for the last 3 years.

 

Tornadoes can be detected by Doppler radar before they touch down, so in most cases, there is time for families to make their preparations. So there's no 'after the fact' because people can move to their safe place before they are hit with a damaging event. In the majority of many tornadoes in my town over the last 10 years, warnings have come at least 10 - 20 minutes before the tornado struck any buildings or populated areas.

Your lucky you get 1o-20 minutes warning. That does NOTHING for those whose property and life is right UNDER a tornado that drops down in SECONDS. Warning times are relative to your geodetic position with respect to the tornado (witnessed) or potential tornado (radar circulation, not yet witnessed). Even when there are "storm chasers" in the vicinity of the radar's detected location, a tornado may or may not be true. They drop fast.

The warning is NOT issued unless there are FACTS ... trained eye witness or LEO, or radar circulation. NOT one warning has been issued without one of those facts have been observed. That is AFTER the fact. How many tornado warnings were issued before those observations? NONE.

The only development I saw was along the road between Clayton NM and Boise City OK was a rotation from a low cloud (less than 500 feet above the ground) that was circulating about a quarter of a mile NW of the road. I pulled off near a dirt road and watched the circulation for a minute or so. When I saw a stream of dust being sucked into the rotation in front of my pickup, I decided to mosey on up the road. I did report it. It never materialized to a "real" tornado.

 

Your lucky you get 1o-20 minutes warning. That does NOTHING for those whose property and life is right UNDER a tornado that drops down in SECONDS. Warning times are relative to your geodetic position with respect to the tornado (witnessed) or potential tornado (radar circulation, not yet witnessed). Even when there are "storm chasers" in the vicinity of the radar's detected location, a tornado may or may not be true. They drop fast.

The warning is NOT issued unless there are FACTS ... trained eye witness or LEO, or radar circulation. NOT one warning has been issued without one of those facts have been observed. That is AFTER the fact. How many tornado warnings were issued before those observations? NONE.

The only development I saw was along the road between Clayton NM and Boise City OK was a rotation from a low cloud (less than 500 feet above the ground) that was circulating about a quarter of a mile NW of the road. I pulled off near a dirt road and watched the circulation for a minute or so. When I saw a stream of dust being sucked into the rotation in front of my pickup, I decided to mosey on up the road. I did report it. It never materialized to a "real" tornado.

SEVERE WEATHER WATCHES VS. WARNINGS
Do you know the difference between a severe thunderstorm watch and a severe thunderstorm warning?
A severe thunderstorm watch means that the potential exists for the development of thunderstorms which may produce large hail or damaging winds. When a watch is issued, you should go about your normal activities, but keep an eye to the sky and an ear to the National Weather Service's weather radio or local radio and television stations for further updates and possible warnings.
A severe thunderstorm warning, on the other hand, means that a severe thunderstorm is occurring or is imminent based on doppler radar information. You should move indoors to a place of safety. Schools should think about delaying departure of buses, and should take quick action to delay outdoor sports activities, etc.
The term severe refers to hail that is dime size, 0.75 inches in diameter or larger, and/or wind gusts to 58 mph or more. Although lightning can be deadly it is not a criterion for what the National Weather Service defines as severe since any ordinary thunderstorm can produce a lot of lightning. Also, excessive rainfall may lead to flash flooding, but heavy rain is not a criterion for the term severe. Severe strictly refers to hail at least 3/4 of an inch in diameter or wind gusts of at least 58 mph.
If hail golfball size or larger is falling, it indicates that a storm is very well organized and likely has a rotating updraft. Any storm producing giant hail should be watched closely for signs of a possible tornado.
A tornado watch, like a severe thunderstorm watch, means that conditions are favorable for severe thunderstorms to form, but it also means that a few storms may be capable of producing a tornado. A tornado warning is the ultimate in severe warnings, it means that a tornado is either occurring or imminent based on radar. You should take cover immediately.