Investigating How NWS Meteorologists, Emergency Managers, and the Public Interpret Conditional Intensity Forecasts for Severe Weather

Sean Ernst Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
OU Cooperative Institute for Severe and High-Impact Weather Research and Operations, Norman, Oklahoma
NOAA/Storm Prediction Center, Norman, Oklahoma

Search for other papers by Sean Ernst in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7053-9621
,
Benjamin J. Fellman Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
OU Cooperative Institute for Severe and High-Impact Weather Research and Operations, Norman, Oklahoma
NOAA/Storm Prediction Center, Norman, Oklahoma
School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma

Search for other papers by Benjamin J. Fellman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Zoey Rosen Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma

Search for other papers by Zoey Rosen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Makenzie J. Krocak NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma
Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma

Search for other papers by Makenzie J. Krocak in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Israel L. Jirak NOAA/Storm Prediction Center, Norman, Oklahoma

Search for other papers by Israel L. Jirak in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Joseph Ripberger Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma

Search for other papers by Joseph Ripberger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Hank Jenkins-Smith Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma

Search for other papers by Hank Jenkins-Smith in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

Continued research of severe convective storms has enhanced the forecast capabilities of products like the Storm Prediction Center’s (SPC) convective outlook. Since 2003, the outlook has presented information about the likelihood of convective hazards within 25 mi of a point, as well as a “hatched” area where a 10% or greater chance of hail larger than 2 in. in diameter, thunderstorm winds greater than 75 mph, or tornadoes of EF2 strength or greater exists. The SPC has begun testing more detailed forecasts of potential storm intensity and is now seeking to design a product that can effectively communicate this new information. To aid in the development of effective intensity forecast information for the SPC outlook, this study conducted surveys and focus groups with members of the public, National Weather Service meteorologists, and emergency managers, recording their feedback on how they thought this information would change their perceived concern and intended behavior on severe weather event days. We also investigated how different presentations of intensity information impact risk perceptions and understanding of the weather event. The inclusion of intensity information increased the perceived concern of members of the public and emergency managers. Changes to the way that intensity forecast visuals were presented also impacted perceived concern and likelihood of response, suggesting that caution must be taken in deciding what the operational version of the convective outlook should look like.

Significance Statement

As severe weather science advances, the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) has begun to develop the capacity to forecast where significant tornadoes (EF2 or greater), winds (75 mph or greater), and hail (2 in. in diameter or greater) will occur. However, this new forecast information needs to be packaged into a visual format that can effectively communicate severe weather intensity to users ranging from emergency managers to members of the public. Through a series of surveys and focus groups, this study investigates how different user groups interpret several conditional intensity forecast prototypes. Findings suggest that simplified, separated forecasts graphics are preferred to graphics that layer information in one image, and that, although more development is needed, users are able to incorporate conditional intensity information into their decisions around protecting themselves from severe thunderstorms.

© 2025 American Meteorological Society. This published article is licensed under the terms of the default AMS reuse license. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Sean Ernst, sean.ernst@ou.edu

Abstract

Continued research of severe convective storms has enhanced the forecast capabilities of products like the Storm Prediction Center’s (SPC) convective outlook. Since 2003, the outlook has presented information about the likelihood of convective hazards within 25 mi of a point, as well as a “hatched” area where a 10% or greater chance of hail larger than 2 in. in diameter, thunderstorm winds greater than 75 mph, or tornadoes of EF2 strength or greater exists. The SPC has begun testing more detailed forecasts of potential storm intensity and is now seeking to design a product that can effectively communicate this new information. To aid in the development of effective intensity forecast information for the SPC outlook, this study conducted surveys and focus groups with members of the public, National Weather Service meteorologists, and emergency managers, recording their feedback on how they thought this information would change their perceived concern and intended behavior on severe weather event days. We also investigated how different presentations of intensity information impact risk perceptions and understanding of the weather event. The inclusion of intensity information increased the perceived concern of members of the public and emergency managers. Changes to the way that intensity forecast visuals were presented also impacted perceived concern and likelihood of response, suggesting that caution must be taken in deciding what the operational version of the convective outlook should look like.

Significance Statement

As severe weather science advances, the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) has begun to develop the capacity to forecast where significant tornadoes (EF2 or greater), winds (75 mph or greater), and hail (2 in. in diameter or greater) will occur. However, this new forecast information needs to be packaged into a visual format that can effectively communicate severe weather intensity to users ranging from emergency managers to members of the public. Through a series of surveys and focus groups, this study investigates how different user groups interpret several conditional intensity forecast prototypes. Findings suggest that simplified, separated forecasts graphics are preferred to graphics that layer information in one image, and that, although more development is needed, users are able to incorporate conditional intensity information into their decisions around protecting themselves from severe thunderstorms.

© 2025 American Meteorological Society. This published article is licensed under the terms of the default AMS reuse license. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Corresponding author: Sean Ernst, sean.ernst@ou.edu
Save
  • Bitterman, A., M. J. Krocak, J. T. Ripberger, C. L. Silva, H. C. Jenkins-Smith, S. Ernst, and S. Stormer, 2022: Maintaining the series: Public reception, understanding, and responses to severe weather forecasts and warnings in the contiguous United States. Harvard Dataverse, accessed 14 August 2023, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TD5DGD.

  • Bitterman, A., M. J. Krocak, J. T. Ripberger, C. L. Silva, H. C. Jenkins-Smith, Z. Rosen, and V. Dunham, 2023: Tracking change: Public reception, understanding, and responses to severe weather forecasts and warnings in the contiguous United States. Harvard Dataverse, accessed 14 August 2023, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/PPXI8H.

  • Bostrom, A., L. Anselin, and J. Farris, 2008: Visualizing seismic risk and uncertainty: A review of related research. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1128, 2940, https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1399.005.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clark, A., and Coauthors, 2019: Spring Forecasting Experiment 2019 conducted by the Experimental Forecast Program of the NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed: Preliminary results and findings. NOAA, accessed 4 September 2024, https://hwt.nssl.noaa.gov/sfe/2019/docs/HWT_SFE_2019_Prelim_Findings_FINAL.pdf.

  • Clive, M. A. T., E. E. H. Doyle, S. H. Potter, C. Noble, and D. M. Johnston, 2023: How visual design of severe weather outlooks can affect communication and decision-making. Wea. Climate Soc., 15, 979997, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-23-0010.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Demuth, J. L., R. E. Morss, B. H. Morrow, and J. K. Lazo, 2012: Creation and communication of hurricane risk information. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 11331145, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00150.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Grams, J., and B. Bunting, 2020: SPC convective outlooks. Storm Prediction Center, accessed 2 April 2024, https://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/SPC_probotlk_info.html.

  • Hales, J. E., Jr., 1987: An examination of the National Weather Service severe local storm warning program and proposed improvements. NOAA Tech. Memo. NWS NSSFC-15, 36 pp., https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/14123/noaa_14123_DS1.pdf.

  • Hildon, Z., D. Allwood, and N. Black, 2012: Impact of format and content of visual display of data on comprehension, choice and preference: A systematic review. Int. J. Qual. Health Care, 24, 5564, https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzr072.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jarpe, S., 2023: “One hail of a year”: Data shows more than 150 damaging hail storms this year. Accessed 10 September 2024, https://kdvr.com/news/local/one-hail-of-a-year-data-shows-more-than-150-damaging-hail-storms-this-year/.

  • Kent, S., 1964: Words of estimative probability. Stud. Intell., 8, 4965.

  • Krocak, M. J., J. T. Ripberger, S. Ernst, C. Silva, H. Jenkins-Smith, and A. Bitterman, 2023: Public information priorities across weather hazards and time scales. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 104, E768E780, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0190.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • League, C. E., W. Díaz, B. Philips, E. J. Bass, K. Kloesel, E. Gruntfest, and A. Gessner, 2010: Emergency manager decision-making and tornado warning communication. Meteor. Appl., 17, 163172, https://doi.org/10.1002/met.201.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lejano, R. P., J. M. Tan, and A. M. W. Wilson, 2016: A textual processing model of risk communication: Lessons from typhoon Haiyan. Wea. Climate Soc., 8, 447463, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0023.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lenhardt, E. D., R. N. Cross, M. J. Krocak, J. T. Ripberger, S. R. Ernst, C. L. Silva, and H. C. Jenkins, 2020: How likely is that chance of thunderstorms? A study of how National Weather Service forecast offices use words of estimative probability and what they mean to the public. J. Oper. Meteor., 8, 6478, https://doi.org/10.15191/nwajom.2020.0805.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lindell, M. K., and R. W. Perry, 2012: The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Anal., 32, 616632, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Littlefield, R., and Coauthors, 2010: “We tell people. It’s up to them to be prepared.” Public Relations Practices of Local Emergency Managers. The Handbook of Crisis Communication, W. T. Coombs and S. J. Holladay, Eds., Wiley, 245–260.

  • Murphy, A. H., 1993: What is a good forecast? An essay on the nature of goodness in weather forecasting. Wea. Forecasting, 8, 281293, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1993)008<0281:WIAGFA>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • NCEI, 2024: Time series: Billion-dollar weather and climate disasters. Accessed 10 September 2024, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/time-series/US/cost.

  • Nelson, J., and S. Perfater, 2022: Winter Storm Severity Index (WSSI). NWS, 7 pp., https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/wwd/wssi/WSSI_PDD_2022-23.pdf.

  • NWS, 2024: Weather related fatality and injury statistics. NWS, accessed 11 September 2024, https://www.weather.gov/hazstat/.

  • NWS Norman, 2023: The severe weather and tornado outbreak of April 19, 2023. NWS, accessed 2 April 2024, https://www.weather.gov/oun/events-20230419.

  • Otto, P., A. Mehta, and B. Liu, 2018: Mind the gap: Towards and beyond impact messaging to enhance tropical cyclone risk communication. Trop. Cyclone Res. Rev., 7, 140151, https://doi.org/10.6057/2018TCRR02.05.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peters, E., N. Dieckmann, A. Dixon, J. H. Hibbard, and C. K. Mertz, 2007: Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med. Care Res. Rev., 64, 169190, https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587070640020301.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Potter, S. H., P. V. Kreft, P. Milojev, C. Noble, B. Montz, A. Dhellemmes, R. J. Woods, and S. Gauden-Ing, 2018: The influence of impact-based severe weather warnings on risk perceptions and intended protective actions. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 30, 3443, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.03.031.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Radford, J. T., G. M. Lackmann, J. Goodwin, J. Correia Jr., and K. Harnos, 2023: An iterative approach toward development of ensemble visualization techniques for high-impact winter weather hazards: Part I: Product development. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 104, E1 630E1 648, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-22-0192.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ripberger, J. T., C. L. Silva, H. C. Jenkins-Smith, and M. James, 2015: The influence of consequence-based messages on public responses to tornado warnings. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 96, 577590, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00213.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Roberts, P. S., and K. Wernstedt, 2019: Decision biases and heuristics among emergency managers: Just like the public they manage for? Amer. Rev. Public Adm., 49, 292308, https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018799490.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schoor, G., 2021: National Severe Weather products specification. NWSI 10-512 Tech. Doc., 73 pp., https://www.weather.gov/media/directives/010_pdfs/pd01005012curr.pdf.

  • Semmens, K., R. Hogan Carr, B. Montz, and K. Maxfield, 2023: What impact? Communicating severity forecast information through the winter storm severity index. Wea. Climate Soc., 15, 747758, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-23-0023.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Simmons, K. M., and D. Sutter, 2011: Economic and Societal Impacts of Tornadoes. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 282 pp.

  • Smith, B. T., R. L. Thompson, J. S. Grams, C. Broyles, and H. E. Brooks, 2012: Convective modes for significant severe thunderstorms in the contiguous United States. Part I: Storm classification and climatology. Wea. Forecasting, 27, 11141135, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00115.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sorensen, J. H., 2000: Hazard warning systems: Review of 20 years of progress. Nat. Hazards Rev., 1, 119125, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2000)1:2(119).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SPC, 2023: SPC severe weather event review for Wednesday April 19, 2023. NOAA/NWS Storm Prediction Center, accessed 2 April 2024, https://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/archive/event.php?date=20230419.

  • SPC, 2024: Severe weather report database. NOAA/NWS Storm Prediction Center, accessed 11 September 2024, https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/summary/.

  • Stewart, A. E., C. A. Williams, M. D. Phan, A. L. Horst, E. D. Knox, and J. A. Knox, 2016: Through the eyes of the experts: Meteorologists’ perceptions of the probability of precipitation. Wea. Forecasting, 31, 517, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-15-0058.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thompson, R. L., R. Edwards, J. A. Hart, K. L. Elmore, and P. Markowski, 2003: Close proximity soundings within supercell environments obtained from the rapid update cycle. Wea. Forecasting, 18, 12431261, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2003)018<1243:CPSWSE>2.0.CO;2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thompson, R. L., B. T. Smith, J. S. Grams, A. R. Dean, and C. Broyles, 2012: Convective modes for significant severe thunderstorms in the contiguous United States. Part II: Supercell and QLCS tornado environments. Wea. Forecasting, 27, 11361154, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00116.1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vancil, J. T., I. L. Jirak, and C. D. Karstens, 2022: Conditional intensity forecast verification using significant severe local storm reports. NOAA Tech Doc. 214, 7 pp., https://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/vancil/condints.pdf.

  • Wade, A. R., I. L. Jirak, V. A. Gensini, and J. Vancil, 2023: Using Practically perfect intensity hindcasts to identify the environments of significant severe weather outbreaks. NOAA Tech Doc. 180, 9 pp., https://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/wade/ppsigsvr.pdf.

  • Wanless, A., S. Stormer, A. Fox, J. T. Ripberger, M. J. Krocak, A. Bitterman, C. L. Silva, and H. C. Jenkins-Smith, 2023: The extreme weather and emergency management survey, Wave 2: Emergency manager use of severe weather forecast information. Harvard Dataverse, accessed 14 August 2023, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RUUQRP.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1425 1425 749
PDF Downloads 358 358 65