• 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.

"Violently" removed from official AMS definition of tornado

Correct MikeD. People do get injured by EF0 tornados. Injuries by a "violent" wind. So I found it comical that the AMS would choose to remove the word violent when describing tornadoes. That's all.
A definition isn't the same as a description. When coming up with a scientific definition, it's best to use the minimum number of physical criteria that will uniquely specify the phenomenon you're trying to define. In this context, using the word "violent" is simply unnecessary. That it's capable of causing damage or injury is already implied by the minimum wind speed criteria. This is in addition to the problem that "violent" may have different interpretations (is it describing the wind's capability of producing damage/destruction, or is it some physical characteristic of the motion?).

Within the context of an informal dictionary-type definition, it might be okay to include the word "violent". The AMS definitions are geared towards meteorologists though, not the public in general. Therefore they should attempt to be more formal. Scientists need concise definitions when they're referring to natural phenomena in formal publications. Not having concise definitions makes their job harder, as a reviewer can have questions as to what the author is talking about when using terminology. It may seem pedantic, but there's a reason for it.
Last edited: