Through a humorous review of commonly used weather words, we see how basic ideas may take on new meaning depending on the age, culture, gender and socioeconomic standing of a viewer or listener. Meteorology jargon and cliché can give a wrong impression of physical processes. Do storms really gather steam? Does fog really burn off? Can a tornado occur and not be on the ground?
A simple phrase like, "we'll see storms in the morning," can have multiple interpretations for when "morning" is, and for what "storms" are. Storms could be ordinary brief isolated thunderstorms. To a person who has seen recent news reports of tornado damage and injury, storms may be perceived as severe thunderstorms or tornadoes. A broadcaster must be clear and not force the audience to assume.
When a broadcaster or forecast discussion speaks of, "a frontal boundary producing precipitation," that does not clearly say what type of "front" and what type of "precipitation." The phrase is also redundant by the definition of a front.
The challenge of the weather broadcaster, in particular, is to routinely speak extemporaneously within time constraints. This can lead to redundancy. Only by objectively examining one's work do things like redundancy, jargon, vagueness, and cliché become evident. This is true for written alerts too.
Furthermore, misused grammar muddies the message. Proper grammar can reduce verbiage and make concepts and information more digestible. Well-chosen words improve weather alerts and weather presentations by limiting the possibility of audience or user misinterpretation.
- Indicates paper has been withdrawn from meeting
- Indicates an Award Winner