• A friendly and periodic reminder of the rules we use for fostering high SNR and quality conversation and interaction at Stormtrack: Forum rules

    P.S. - Nothing specific happened to prompt this message! No one is in trouble, there are no flame wars in effect, nor any inappropriate conversation ongoing. This is being posted sitewide as a casual refresher.

Poor Media Use of Weather Terminology

Weatherman Robert De Vries hunts hurricanes in America (commentaryboxsports.com) Um... what? I think you mean tornadoes? Or supercells? I don't see any actual hurricanes mentioned in this article... at least correctly.
Some nice quotes from the article: "They drove about 800 kilometers every day, looking for a hurricane." " ‘Tornado at the Ground’, which rang out enthusiastically among storm chasers from around the world." " Because a hurricane is an experience, de Vries concludes. ‘It growls and roars. You see the earth reacting as warm air is drawn into that hurricane and cold air is expelled."
 
Weatherman Robert De Vries hunts hurricanes in America (commentaryboxsports.com) Um... what? I think you mean tornadoes? Or supercells? I don't see any actual hurricanes mentioned in this article... at least correctly.

Looks like the article originated in the Netherlands. When I was studying Russian, the word for tornado, hurricane and cyclone was the same word. They did have a specific word for tornado, but it was rarely used. Sometimes the same word would be used just to refer to a generic wind storm. As a result, it made translating to English complicated, especially for my native Russian instructors. I bet it was a similar problem for the writers of the article you posted.
 
Looks like the article originated in the Netherlands. When I was studying Russian, the word for tornado, hurricane and cyclone was the same word. They did have a specific word for tornado, but it was rarely used. Sometimes the same word would be used just to refer to a generic wind storm. As a result, it made translating to English complicated, especially for my native Russian instructors. I bet it was a similar problem for the writers of the article you posted.
I had no idea! Thanks for sharing that!
 
Some nice quotes from the article: "They drove about 800 kilometers every day, looking for a hurricane." " ‘Tornado at the Ground’, which rang out enthusiastically among storm chasers from around the world." " Because a hurricane is an experience, de Vries concludes. ‘It growls and roars. You see the earth reacting as warm air is drawn into that hurricane and cold air is expelled."

Kind of like an article that’s supposed to be about baseball and talks about touchdowns and field goals
 
I like how they called this as "possible tornado" even though the video shows an obvious tornado on the ground

While I suspect this is the manifestation of a journalistic ethos to call everything "supposed", "alleged", "possible" until/unless 100% dead-on-balls certainty can be provided, it gets absurd when you're staring something definitive in the face and they still stick to that lexicon. :rolleyes:
 
While I suspect this is the manifestation of a journalistic ethos to call everything "supposed", "alleged", "possible" until/unless 100% dead-on-balls certainty can be provided, it gets absurd when you're staring something definitive in the face and they still stick to that lexicon. :rolleyes:

Which would be great except that, in my 70 years, I don't remember a time when journalists got so many basic things wrong.
 
In defense of the station, although the YouTube title says, “Possible”, the on-air presenter never said, “possible.” She always talked about the tornadoes as definite. I blame the IT staff for posting that qualification.
 
Actually what we're seeing in this video is the funnel clouds.
I thought it was a tornado, also. Especially near the end where clear horizontal flow is ingested into the vortex. It looked like rain/water vapor but still looked like the vortex reached the (hilly) surface.
 
Not exactly terminology, but a huge and entirely preventable error on CNN tonight, where the reporter said that the fire this week in Maui was the second deadliest in U.S. history, and that the Camp Fire, which destroyed Paradise, CA a few years ago, was the deadliest. NOT EVEN CLOSE, as tragic as these fires were. On one horrible day, October 8, 1871, there were three fires that EACH killed far more than the two mentioned by the reporter combined, at least based on the current Maui death toll, which of course will likely go higher. But not enough to make what the reporter said true. At least 1500, possibly as many as 2500, died in Peshtigo, WI, 250 more in the great Chicago fire, and another 200 in Port Huron, MI. All on the same day. The reporter could have easily found this out by spending 2 minutes on Wikipedia before going on air and making such exaggerated and inaccurate statements.
 
I don't know what's with the news outlet calling a very obvious tornado as "funnel cloud"
 
Back
Top