Actually the "severe" criteria may be a bit too strict. My suggestion is that the criteria for WIND be brought in line with NHC's criteria for tropical storms and hurricanes. There should also be a "severe" criterion for lightning frequency of more than one cloud/ground strike per 60 seconds. Below the severe level, there should be an official criterion for "strong" thunderstorms. I will be posting my "unofficial" criteria separately.

To be perfectly honest with you, I take a severe thunderstorm warning to mean that we might get 2 hailstones smaller than a pencil eraser, and a light wind gust that will rustle the trees a bit. That's all we ever get here from the "severe thunderstorms." I know I should take it more seriously, be we very very rarely get winds or hail that meet the criteria for severe weather. So usually when a severe thunderstorm warning is issued, I'm ready for a lot of thunder and lightning, along with some heavy rain. The only time a severe thunderstorm has lived up to the warning was during the June 4th bow echo/derecho/whatever-you-wanna-call-it event. That was one of the most intense storms I've ever seen. And besides, if there is large hail or strong winds, I'm usually nowhere near the windows or exterior walls during thunderstorms anyway, so I'm sure we'd be okay through one.

Now...if a tornado warning is issued, expect to find me cowering in the bathtub until winter. hehe ;)

On the question of issuing too many warnings? That's an extremely hard call to make. On the one hand, if they go by what the radar is telling them about the winds and hail in a storm, issue the warnings, and nothing materializes (which is what happens here a lot), they run the risk of people thinking they're "crying wolf." On the other hand, if they decide to go against what the computers are saying and they don't issue a warning, and there is severe weather, they'll take flack for it. So...it's a case of "darned if you do, darned if you don't." In the poll, I voted "yes" based solely on the fact that we get only about 5% of the severe weather that we're ever warned for.

This post represents the unofficial "Bombo" criteria for severe weather. (Currently lightning is not included in the criteria though lightning is, next to floods, the greatest weather-related killer.):

A) WIND: Sustained winds of TROPICAL STORM FORCE (>39mph) or greater over a period of at least ten seconds AND/OR Wind gusts greater than 57 mph. OR

B) HAIL: Hailstones of MARBLE SIZE (1/2--3/4" diameter) or larger over a period of at least ten seconds. OR

C) LIGHTNING: Cloud-ground strikes at the minimum rate of one per 60 seconds or any rate of higher frequency (e.g. one strike per 30 seconds).

OR:

D) any combination of the three criteria mentioned above.

In addition, the "Bombo" criterion for a tornado warning would involve A) the visual observation of a funnel cloud AND/OR B) the observation of one or more "rotation" echoes on Doppler radar.

The NWS is further encouraged to implement NEXRAD-PLUS by integrating the total coverage of all TV-station, military and other independent Doppler radars with current NEXRAD radars into one comprehensive national Doppler radar network. Thus a current radar map of the continental U.S. could be dialed up at any time.

I work in upper Northwest. The number of enormous dead/dying trees in this area certainly add to that "severe weather" frisson, and I am perfectly happy to stay at work another hour till the weather has left.

People in the D.C. Metro area are, wimps, weather wise at least. Everyone battens down the hatches when there is any sign of lightning in the sky. 3 inches of snow will cripple us for a day, meanwhile a foot would bring us to our knees for a week. People are just plain scared it seems. Check out the store before any type of predicted storm. PACKED. Why would all these reasonably wealthy people need so many supplies because of a couple of inches of snow? Dunno.

I wonder how many times the weather men on TV and in blog world hype a WINTER STORM only for it to vanish into a dusting or non-event the day before the "STORM" was to arrive???? That is the real question my friends.

As far as warnings are concerning, I try to realize that even in the warned area, sometimes only a small percentage of all residents are directly affected. And even with the latest "localized" warnings, thunderstorms can intensify or weaken in seconds, thus either reinforcing the warning or rendering it meaningless. The local NWS offices may only have radar to base a warning on unless they're dealing with a long-track CB with a history of ground truth. And long-track thunderstorms with damage histories are just not all that common in the DC area; plus being in a forecast area that is mountain, piedmont and coastal plan, along with bay breezes generates a host of low-level mesoscale influences undetectable by satellite or instrumentation that exert their own influences on weather systems.

While down in South Carolina this past March, I had my first experience with a PDS (particularly dangerous situation) tornado watch. You can believe I took the assicuated warnings seriously. Conditions were such that I didn't have to (or want to) wait to seek appropriate shelter. So I don't think the Sterling office overreacted one bit when it issued its warnings, especially in view of this spring's unusually dangerous conditions throughout the mid-Atlantic and Southeast.

I think that the media also plays up weather events on slow news afternoons. On Sunday afternoon on my way up to Germantown I heard several reporters say that "severe storms are moving through the area" even though there weren't any warnings posted that I was aware of. It seemed like a lot of rain but no wind or hail and only limited lightning.

El Bombo -- On the lightning aspect, my understanding is that there is no criteria classifying a particular amount of lightning as "severe" because all it takes is one lightning strike to injure or kill. Thus, issuing a warning for a specified level of lightning activity may mislead people into thinking that there is no danger when lightning activity does not reach that level. Whereas we know that damage is more likely the stronger the wind and larger the hail.

I think that there is case law that has caused the NWS to issue more severe weather warnings than years ago. I can't find the case but a lawsuit was filed over the issue of the NWS not warning the public somewhere which caused injury and possible death.

Bertha sets the record for longest-lived July storm.

Nevertheless, severe storms generally have more cloud-ground lightning than non-severe ones, and the more lightning hitting the ground in any one cell, the more dangerous the cell. This criterion should also be useful in assessing power-outage risk. Often the inconvenience of a long-term power outage can be even more damaging than the initial storm. In sum, lightning risk is being overlooked in many cases. Power outage is generally related to two factors: wind damage and lightning burnout or surge-damage.

Jason:
I agree with your inference.

This is a case of the "Boy who Cried Wolf"

Warnings are issued much too quickly and covering an area, far beyond the real threat.

I have the capability to observe "real time" warnings much faster than the media reaction and communication. I often chuckle at the "overkill"

Are we as a society being "DUMMED DOWN"?

NWS, most definitely, does NOT issue too many Severe Weather Warnings, and I agree with the statement that lightning frequency should also be a factor besides just hail size (3/4") and 50-knot wind gusts.

You guys have to remember that NWS is using Doppler radar to actually measure the wind speeds, shear, rotation, etc... inside the storm. They don't put out a warning unless the radar itself picks up the citeria...or a trained spotter on the ground reports a wall cloud, large hail, etc.....

Now, there IS one major problem with the warnings, however. NWS keeps them repeating, over and over again, too long. Case in point...a squall line can be well to the east of the city, out over Chesapeake Bay, and the same old tape is still running over the NWS weather radio (162.55) with the old warnings for west of the city....Fairfax, Loudoun, etc... This is one aea that needs MUCH more atttention from NWS. Get the OLD warnings off the air and the NEW ones on as quickly as possible.