Verbal Tornado Warnings

[Scott Nelson]

My understanding of the official verbal Tornado announcement system is a Tornado Watch indicates that Tornadoes are a possiblity while a Tornado Warning means a Tornado has been spotted on the ground and to take cover now. I don't claim to be a linguist or exceptionally knowledgeable about meteorology but I have a comment and then a question regarding the usage of the word WARNING when it comes to Tornado response for the layperson.

Since childhood we've been taught that a warning indicates the "possiblity" of action. Typically the word is used when a child is doing something determined to be wrong and an adult or authority figure wants them to stop the action they are doing. In some instances children are conditioned by school protocol that one warning is all they will receive before disciplinary action of some sort takes place.

With that in mind it's my belief that since we're conditioned to ignore the first usage of that word as a viable NOW threat, it's not respected as originally intended when it comes to Tornado response. If a layperson who is not overly interested in weather hears the words " tornado warning", their first reaction might not be to take shelter right away. Instead they will wait for a second warning of some sort and that slight hesitation may cause them or others harm.

I realize that no one word is perfect to cover all situations but might it be better to use a different term to notify the public that a tornado IS on the ground? Maybe it could be changed that when tornadoes are a "possibility" it's called a Warning but if the Tornado is actually on the ground a better actionary word like "Imminent Threat" is used?

I understand that we're far away from being able to guarantee with 100% certainty that a Tornado is actually imminent. Just wondering if we should reevaluate how we notify the public verbally and if a better word could be used. This is only my opinion as I'm sure a lot of thought went into the best way to notify the public.

 

[Stan Rose]

Scott, that is how a warning is defined; it's an "imminent threat". The tornado does not have to be present, a storm can also be warned that is "capable of producing a tornado".

Now, the more interesting question is whether warnings should be fundamentally different for storms that are "capable" of producing, versus storms that have a confirmed tornado. Using the 'KISS' princiople, they probably shouldn't be. A storm that is 'capable' of producing an EF-5 probably should be heeded more than a confirmed brief weak spin-up. The bottom line is that the warning conveys the idea to take immediate action to protect oneself.

 

[Scott Nelson]

Scott, that is how a warning is defined; it's an "imminent threat". The tornado does not have to be present, a storm can also be warned that is "capable of producing a tornado".

Stan... I know that and you know that. My thread point is not everyone understands the system due to the way the word is used when we're young and in every day life. We're here on Stormtrack because we have an interest in severe weather. I don't visit Volcano forums because I specifically don't have an interest in them. Thus a warning about one might go unheeded by me because I'm ignorant about their warning terminology.

 

[Jonathan Eakins]

Scott, I must say that is an interesting thought process, linking tornado warnings and childhood experiences. The debate about the effectiveness of tornado warnings versus other phrases has been around for quite some time, especially since the 'Tornado Emergency' line has joined our vocabulary. But that is a seperate debate of it's own.

"Since childhood we've been taught that a warning indicates the "possiblity" of action." A tornado warning in this case is the same, the possibility (whether confirmed or not) of a tornado impacting a particular location. If you went to your next door neighbor who had never heard that phrase before and told them there was a tornado warning, those two words alone should be enough of a phrase to at least increase someone's alert level. (*grins* In fact, their alert level would probably be higher than someone who had heard 'tornado warning' hundreds of times and never saw one.)

"...we're condidtioned to ignore the first useage of that word..." I agree. Human nature is we like to confirm something ourselves. But it's not just the phrase "tornado warning" that would be subjected to it. You could call it an "world ending scenerio" or anything else. The point being, no matter what phrase is used, for the most part, most people need to confirm it before acting. Wether it be hearing the warning from multiple sources, talking to friends/neighbors, or seeing a tornado themselves; especially someone who has never been personally impacted by a tornado before. In fact, I remember that being talked about in the NWS Warning Decision Training Branch training modules.

"... might it be better to use a different term to notify the public that a tornado IS on the ground?" Perhaps, and there we start to get into the Tornado Emergency debate. Rather than get into that, I will keep it simplistic. You're subject is the layperson of weather. The problem is that there is already confusion even when it comes to tornado watch and tornado warning. If we start adding more vocabulary to the mix, it can and will add to the confusion. For all the questions of "what's the difference between a watch and a warning?", could you imagine the layperson trying to make sense of the difference between a tornado watch, a tornado advisory, a tornado alert, a tornado warning, and a tornado emergency?

I may have digressed from your actual point, about replacing the word 'warning' with another word. Again, the problem with that would be #1, re-educating the public about the new phrase. #2, people who have already heard the phrase tornado warning may not know the difference and may not act upon it correctly. #3, regardless of what it's called, we have a problem with Boy Calling wolf Syndrome. Even if we change the wording, once it is used over and over and over again with nothing happening, which happens with current tornado warnings, people will become used to it and not act accordingly until it's right their in there face and possibly too late.

 

[Scott Nelson]

Jonathan... I agree with everything you say. Adding more terminology to the mix is NOT what is going to solve the issue. Just wondering if the word that was chosen was the proper one and would changing things late in the game hurt or help. This is kind of like the debate about getting out of your car and entering a ditch. For years they encouraged you to seek low ground and not out run a twister and now it's been changed to stay in your car.

Ironically what brough this question on for me is I caught the Supertwister episode on NOVA the other evening. Although I had seen it before, I hadn't noticed that they reinforced that a WARNING means the Tornado is on the ground. This really threw me as I wouldn't think that the layperson would understand that.

 

[rdale]

Thus a warning about one might go unheeded by me because I'm ignorant about their warning terminology.

So if you visited Mt St Helens, and somebody interrupted the TV and sounded the sirens and sent you an alert on your cellphone that said "Volcano Eruption Warning" - you would shrug that off until you heard a "Volcano Eruption Imminent Threat"?

 

[Matt Hunt]

I think what makes people hesitate on taking action is the fact they have likely been through a number of "Tornado Warning's" in their lifetime, but never an actual tornado. It's like the boy who cried wolf. After a while they start to feel like, "oh there's a tornado warning. In my experience, that has never led to an actual tornado."

Perhaps in time we will have radar capable of telling us for sure whether a storm is producing a tornado, or about to produce a tornado. Then we could avoid "false alarms". Earlier this year here in Indianapolis there was a tornado warning issued one evening on what was really a pretty weak storm, and several residents questioned why the warning was issued. As you could probably guess, it was radar indicated rotation in the storm.

I think no matter what the wording of the warning, you'll still have people who fail to take action. That's their choice, and if they lose their life because of their inaction, well you can't say they weren't provided adequate warning. Don't mean to sound insensitive, but if you get a Tornado Warning and don't take cover, it's your own fault if you are injured or killed.

 

[Joshua Nall]

It's my understanding that a warning just means that a storm is capable of producing a tornado, not that there actually is a tornado.

.......I think no matter what the wording of the warning, you'll still have people who fail to take action. That's their choice, and if they lose their life because of their inaction, well you can't say they weren't provided adequate warning. Don't mean to sound insensitive, but if you get a Tornado Warning and don't take cover, it's your own fault if you are injured or killed.

Exactly. And I would even go further and say that even if they got no warning, it's still their fault if they were injured or killed. You can't go around blaming everything bad that happens on somebody else. Folks know that some T-storms sometime produce tornadoes. They can either choose to be informed or choose to ignore what is going on around them, choose not to be informed. Different wording won't change things. And I get a bit annoyed at this talk about educating the public, like it's so hard to teach them anything, or make them understand... seems to be a lot of that talk lately, it's a bit elitist... "we're so much smarter and knowledgeable, and they just need to be taught by us".... Has it ever crossed anyone's mind that they don't want to understand? Warnings do save lives and most people do take notice. But there are members of my family for example, that get really annoyed when weather coverage breaks into the end of their TV show.... I'd have to guess there are way more people that tune it all out since that practice became popular.

I guess it's this socialist mentality that is becoming more prevalent. I don't know how to explain it.... but I don't like it. Why is everyone so consumed with keeping everyone else safe? I have warning labels all over my mowers telling you not to stick your hand in the blades. Doesn't everyone know not to do that? Have we totally circumvented the natural selection process? Like, don't stick you head under there dude! Give me a break! I bought a mower recently and talked with the company about the poor cut, and they said there were new regulations to where they had to mount the blades far enough up under the deck that if you stuck your foot under there it would not hit it.... I say, ok great... it's safe for a moron to mow with it, but it won't cut grass. We are regulating and warning ourselves out of a simple productive life, and people are getting more and more stupid all the time.

 

[Scott Nelson]

Joshua, I respect your opinion. I stated in my original thread that I have my own shortcomings so this isn't about me trying to save the world. Simply looking at the usage of a Warning system already in place and wondering if it causes confusion due to the usage of the word "warning" in the school system. I see it's usage everyday and think it's a discussion worth bringing up when children are involved. It's not thier fault empty threats are common place and subsequently they've become numb to the word.

Rdale, you better believe that if Volcano warning comes on, I'm outta there!!!! ) I was just using it as a tongue and cheek comparison that it would be odd if a Volcano warning was only issued when actual lava was flowing down the slope towards me. Lol!

 

[rdale]

I see children react more strongly to tornado warnings than adults. As I recall, in OKC's tornado of 1999 none of the deaths were children. So there must be more to the story than just the phrasing...

 

[Matt Hunt]

I see children react more strongly to tornado warnings than adults. As I recall, in OKC's tornado of 1999 none of the deaths were children. So there must be more to the story than just the phrasing...

My point exactly. As adults we have become conditioned that a tornado warning doesn't necessarily mean we should be worried, since we have experienced a number of tornado warnings in our lifetime, and yet no actual tornadoes.

I think Joshua hit the nail on the head. People are getting dumber and dumber, not to mention more and more lawsuit happy, so everything in our world is becoming dumbed down and ridiculously obvious. It doesn't take a ton of knowledge to understand what a hook echo looks like on the radar, or which part of the storm would contain a tornado, look at its path relative to your location, and decide whether or not it's a threat to you. Especially on the news coverage where they like to zoom right in to street level, and many times show you exactly where the tornado is likely to be.

I think the warning system is pretty good, but I hope that in the future our radars become advanced enough to be able to tell when rotation in the storm will NOT produce a tornado. We all know plenty of storms exhibit rotation, but never drop a tornado. Hopefully the findings of Vortex 2 can help with some of that.