COMPLETE DEVASTATION LIKELY!

[Odd]

Title grab your attention? How about if I post a thread every third day for the next four months with that title? How about twice in the next six months?

This just complicates the existing problem, imo. I suggest going back to the old watch/warning system where a warning means something instead of scaring people into rushing for their thesaurus.

To fight apathy, weather service to test new tornado warnings: 'COMPLETE DEVASTATION LIKELY!'

But three out of every four times the National Weather Service issues a formal tornado warning, there isn't one. The result is a "cry wolf" phenomenon that's dulled the effectiveness of tornado warnings, and one the weather service hopes to solve with what amounts to a scare tactic.

In a test that starts Monday, five weather service offices in Kansas and Missouri will use words such as "mass devastation," "unsurvivable" and "catastrophic" in a new kind of warning that's based on the severity of a storm's expected impact. The goal is to more effectively communicate the dangers of an approaching storm so people understand the risks they're about to face.

...rest at link

[pgg]

Some of our masses are so gullible they will start looting in the streets

[lewisipso]

Doesn't sound like a good idea.

[copboy]

There is no way to know what "impact" a storm will have. A very powerful storm might kick up a weak (EF0 or EF1 ) tornado or no tornado at all ( like happened here on Friday where we had powerful storms with funnel clouds and all but no tornadoes) or a seemingly weak storm could drop an EF5 tornado. This type of wording does nothing. Any tornado no matter how weak is dangerous and should be treated a such. If they are worried about people having the "cry wolf" syndrome they need to improve forecasting and look at their criteria and policies for issuing warnings.