I don't think there's any evidence that the NWS can issue apocalyptic warnings with today's science and technology with any skill. One of the warnings on 14 April talked about a town being unrecognizable to survivors, but the town wasn't even hit. In addition, my understanding of the body of social science literature about messaging indicates that such apocalyptic wording will not necessarily lead to better response.
Better to be safe than sorry. Look at Joplin they had warning and watches but still it ripped through the town. It awesome out technology can see this and make quick alert but people have to use common sense. Tornado alert are usually for short time 4-8 hours stay home in safe place and wait it out. If you kids are somewhere else tell them to wait it out if it is in public area most business or government will warn it get people safe. Remember the area had no warning about the earthquake at least with tornado we get a warning.
Thanks for the comments Harold and Adam. I think this points out we sure need more social science expertise and involvement in communicating risk and decisions when dangerous weather is forecast. 59 years ago today Worcester, MA tornado but then weather bureau did not issue a "watch" for fear of public panic
I just think people need to heed the warnings of potential tornadic and severe weather. Then, tune in to you guys to get the details on where the weather might be if there is severe weather. I really don't think it's that difficult! ie: Don't go outside if there is a dangerous storm approaching or in the area.
Well done, Bob. I wonder if Warnings with no ground confirmation should be referred to a Radar-Suggested Tornado Warning (or some similar phrasing). When ground confirmation is made, the phrasing could then be stepped up, with a full Tornado Warning issued. Certainly not a perfect solution (some are on the ground for several minutes before confirmed). I would imagine this cuts down on the FAR but also effects the POD in verification studies.