Thread - the public (and most broadcast meteorologists, tbh) tunes out most severe thunderstorm warnings (SVR).

How many TV stations go wall-to-wall for *all* SVR? Probably zero.

We only do that for situations that are worse than typical SVR.

We did that on Jan 11, Easter and again last night. But, unless we expect something worse than a typical SVR, we don’t do continuous coverage.

Most TV stations handle it this way. Because a lot of SVRs either don’t verify or, more commonly, verify in a very small area. #alwx

So when DO get a storm that will produce large areas of life-threatening wind, but no rotation, it gets a SVR.

And people tune those out. I’ve heard from many in Chilton/Coosa/Tallapoosa who said they had no warning.

They did. They had a SVR. But those get minimized.

So what I would love to have in our toolbox - a Destructive Wind Warning. These would cover derechos, inland tropical cyclone remnants, and QLCS wind like we saw last night.

They’re a step above SVR.

TV stations and other weather info providers would treat these similarly to TOR.

NWS would issue when large (they could study and define this word) areas of 70+ mph wind is expected.

As we do it now, officially, we treat a football field worth of 60 mph wind the same way we treat twenty square miles of 75 mph wind.

And as we saw last night and many others, those are not close in terms of impact. #alwx #weather

Can IBW tags change that? I don’t know.

I personally think the DWW (Destructive Wind Warning) would be a better option.

Covers multiple events that produce the same impact. NWS could use DWW instead of TORs for transient EF-0 eddies in marginal QLCS or landfalling TC. #alwx