-
A new feature has been added to the Xenforo software - Shoutbox. A quick chat platform
- Weather and Chasing
- Introductory weather & chasing
"Violently" removed from official AMS definition of tornado
- Thread starter Dan Robinson
- Start date
rdale
EF5
EF0 tornadoes don't hurl debris anywhere near a mile... I guess my point is this - since meteorology is a science, and "violently" is not a scientifically-defined term, there's no need for it in a definition. This tweak makes perfect sense.Brian Brachel
EF0
Correct MikeD. RDale, you guys do this work on more than a Part Time basis. You're asking me like I'm stupid, "What am I taking about?" People get injured by EF0 tornados. Google it. So I found it more than comical that an authorized organization dealing with tornados would say that they are not violent winds. That's all. Or, did I miss something?
Sent from my iPhone using StormtrackBrian Brachel
EF0
I'm having a really difficult time deciphering what message you were trying to convey with this response. Can you clarify your point?Brian Brachel
EF0
Sorry, that repost was a mistake. Still learning your edit system on this forum. Apologies
Sent from my iPhone using StormtrackBrian Brachel
EF0
Sorry Jeff, reposted incorrectly. Still trying to learn editing tool on forum with my phone
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.
Sent from my iPhone using Stormtrack
Sent from my iPhone using StormtrackLast edited:
A good edit would be to get rid of “Sent from my iPhone using Stormtrack.”
Alex Elmore
EF2
I'd say you missed something. The fact that they removed the word "violent" from the definition is not saying that tornadoes of any intensity are not destructive, powerful, etc. While any reason I could come up with as to why they removed "violent" from the definition would be purely speculation, I'd have to agree with Jeff's explanation above of the subjective nature of the word.
Sure, people can get injured from tornadoes of any intensity. Having partaken in damage surveys of different intensity tornadoes, I can tell you that most people who are impacted directly by a tornado couldn't care less what the definition of a tornado was. They usually want to know if it was a tornado or straight-line winds, and if it was a tornado, maybe what intensity it was. I would argue the definition is used for academic, research, and operational purposes, and will most likely change again as the science advances. But that is of no concern to the general public.rdale
EF5
Nobody said you're stupid - but you clearly didn't understand the reason it was removed. It's because "violently" is not defined in the literature, as Jeff pointed out in the very second message.Marshall Stoner
EF1
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:
