Bob Pifer 1 and NWS Hazardous H. Michael Mogil Terminology , NOAA Silver , Md. 20910

Abstract action/response words appear in NWS releases. Figures The hazardous weather terminology used by the National 5 and 6 show the geographical and temporal aspects of Weather Service has slowly evolved since the beginning of watches/warnings for tornadoes/severe a U.S. weather service in the 1800s. Use of the terms watch and hurricanes, respectively. and warning has proved to be the most controversial aspect of the present warning system. Very little research has been 3. History conducted to determine if the public understands hazardous weather terminology. However, public surveys to date seem Warning has been in use since a weather service was to indicate that the general public at least understands the established within the U.S. Army Signal Corps in 1870 difference between watch and warning. More surveys of the (Caskey, 1970). Even though the U.S. Weather Bureau public are needed in order to establish an optimum weather was formed in 1880, it was not until the late 1890s that warning system- the concept of watch was first used. The concept began 1. Introduction with the Warning, which was normally issued 36 h Weather affects everyone in some way everyday. How- before expected landfall of a hurricane and which also ever, on certain occasions, it can become life threaten- mentioned what part of the United States might be af- ing. Many of these situations can be recognized by an fected (U.S. Weather Bureau, 1933). The Storm Warning educated public and protective actions can be taken in would be followed later by a Hurricane Warning speci- time to avoid death or injury. In some cases, a mete- fying the area where the hurricane was expected to orological or hydrological service must advise the public make landfall. In September 1943, the Weather Bureau of the danger in time for action to be taken. Un- began issuing a Preliminary Hurricane Alert for the fortunately, the public is not weather educated and same circumstances as the present-day Hurricane Watch. generally depends on such services for advice in nearly Apparently, the word alert was never disseminated pub- all threatening situations. In order to do this, the NWS licly (U.S. Weather Bureau, 1947). has developed warning programs and associated ter- In 1955, the term alert was used publicly in connec- minology to inform its users of weather dangers or tion with hurricanes, but by 1956 it was replaced by the hazardous weather. Mogil and Groper (1977) and Mogil word watch. This was the first public use of this term. et al. (1978) have described these programs. Severe and forecasts were issued from the mid-1950s until 1965. Then based on informa- 2. Terminology tion obtained in the aftermath of the Palm Sunday tor- There are two aspects of the terminology used in weather nado outbreak (U.S. Weather Bureau, 1965), watch re- information that must be understood before any further placed forecast. Watch was used in association with flash discussion can be fruitful. To begin with, certain terms in 1969, and finally during the of 1973-74, are used in a descriptive sense. These are the words watch came into use with the term . Re- normally used to describe a class of weather information cently (.Federal Register, 1977), the U.S. Geological Sur- releases (e.g., warnings, statements, outlooks, and fore- vey has been instructed to use the terms watch, warning, casts). The adjectives that are used to further define the and alert for earthquakes. class of release are similarly used. As a result, the NWS Weather-related watches have been used for 22 years. has 44 separate product titles (e.g., Flash State- In the past 10 years, their use has expanded greatly. The ment and ) with which to identify terms watch and warning are also used, or are under releases about dangerous weather parameters. consideration for use, by several foreign meteorological The other aspect of weather terminology concerns the services. words that are actually used within these weather re- 4. Public's knowledge leases. These are what the public actually hears in a broadcast. Much of this terminology consists of hazar- The NWS's goal in hazardous weather situations is to dous weather terms (Fig. 1) and associated action/ inform the public and the emergency action agencies response words (Fig. 2). As can be seen, most of the of the weather hazard and to help them initiate ap- product title terminology also shows up in the text of propriate adaptive responses. The intent of the product the message. In examining Figs. 1 and 2, the terms that titles is to alert the news media and have them take are purported to cause the most confusion include appropriate dissemination action. Achieving these goals watch, warning, advisory, alert, , and storm is easiest with the agencies because being organized tide. Figures 3 and 4 show how hazardous weather and groups they can be reached quickly and there are rela- tively few individuals to work with. On the other hand, i Now at National Hurricane Center, Miami, Fla., 33145. the public is more difficult to reach and interact with.

Bulletin American Meteorological Society 1583

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/05/21 08:26 AM UTC 1584 Vol. 59, No. 12, December 1978

niques. Their surveys were strictly of an ad hoc nature. Funnel Although none of the reports explicitly states the num- Severe Thunderstorm Winter Storm ber of people surveyed, these numbers were fairly small. Tornado Also, no attempts were made to minimize any biases Severe Blizzard introduced by the lack of any defined sampling tech- nique. Flood Duststorm Freeze 5. Meteorologist's perception of public knowledge Frost Since NWS employees spend a significant amount of Storm Heavy time in contact with the public, it is important to know Hurricane High if the public's understanding of hazardous weather Tropical Storm terminology feeds back into the system through these contacts (, 1977). So we surveyed 84 NWS offices to Storm Tide Sleet check on the efficiency of this feedback (255 question- Storm Surge naires with 90% response). These responses were spread Tropical Disturbance evenly between station managers (38%), meteorologists/ hydrologists (27%), and meteorological technicians FIG. 1. Selected hazardous weather terminology used in (29%). The remaining replies (6%) were from ad- weather message texts released to the public. ministrative staff. The results of the survey, which show the percent of surveyed NWS employees that perceives To the best of our knowledge, only eight surveys have the majority of the public understands the various types ever been conducted to study the weather user (Bates of watches and warnings, are given below. et al., 1963; Moore et al., 1963; Cornog and Bickert, 1969; Wilkinson and Ross, 1970; AT&T, 1971; Bureau % of NWS of the Census, 1977; Christensen and Ruch, 1977; Wind- Term Employees ham et al., 1977). Even with these studies, much more Tornado Watch 44 needs to be known about the public's understanding of Winter Storm Watch 35 weather terminology (Pifer, 1978). Even less is known Flash Flood Watch 31 about what goes into causing the public to react the Hurricane Watch 30 (40) way it does in the face of a natural disaster, although Tornado Warning 79 some recent studies (e.g., Gruntfest, 1977) are shedding Hurricane Warning 61 light on this problem. Flash Flood Warning 59 Four of the studies were concerned with the public's Winter Storm Warning 53 response to hurricanes.'Three of these four surveys in- The number in parentheses is the result of responses from cluded questions about terminology, but the questions coastal stations along the East and Gulf Coasts only. only involved five terms. However* the words watch and warning were two of the terms on which the public's It should be noted that there appears to be some corre- knowledge was tested (Wilkinson and Ross, 1970; Wind- lation between the length of time a particular watch ham et al., 1977; Christensen and Ruch, 1977). The re- type has been in use and the NWS employee's percep- sults of the Wilkinson and Ross survey showed that tion that the public understands that particular term. 70-75% of the public could define hurricane watch and warning. In the Windham et al. survey, this figure jumped to 80-85%, and in the Christensen and Ruch Watch Informed survey it was 80-90%. Based on these three surveys, it Warning Ready appears that the public understands the difference be- Advisory Avoid tween the terms watch and warning, at least for hurri- Threatens Move canes. There is some sentiment, but not proof, that these Recommend results may be applicable regardless of the type of Prepared weather event. Protect Secure As part of management investigations following weather Hazardous Relocate disasters, members of NOAA staff tour the area of a Caution Evacuation disaster and ask the public for their response to the Lookout Removed weather warnings. There have been eight reports of Damaging Seek these surveys involving contact with the public (U.S. Immediate Weather Bureau, 1965; ESSA, 1970; NOAA, 1971, 1972, Listen 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976). In general, these reports indi- Effect Actions cated that in those locations where severe weather Alert terminology was used most frequently, the public was more likely to understand it. However, these disaster FIG. 2. Selected action /response words used in survey teams did not use any statistical sampling tech- weather message texts released to the public.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/05/21 08:26 AM UTC Bulletin American Meteorological Society 1585

FIG. 3. Examples of weather releases for severe local .

However, there is a large discrepancy between the per- public. The problem is that we speak a different lan- ceptions of public understanding of "hurricane watch" guage. Until such time as we and the public speak the same language, there will continue to be communication and "hurricane warning" by NWS employees and the problems. surveyed public. In our survey of NWS employees, we also asked for Suggest that "Watches" be issued only for tropical suggestions for changes in terminology and/or the , tornadoes, and severe thunderstorms, and not for flash flood, winter weather, etc. Preliminary alerting overall weather warning system. Slightly over 40% of of the public to these slower developing situations could our respondents gave a reply to this question. In turn, be done in the public forecasts. these replies were about evenly divided for and against change to the present NWS terminology. These are a Watches could be limited to "in-house" or very limited (i.e., special interests) distribution and issue only warn- few of the comments of those respondents suggesting ings to the general public. changes: Public does not distinguish between watch and warning The term "Watch" should be replaced by some other (also the media). We should avoid excessive use of terms term such as "Alert," or "Possibility". Public dosen't such as Bulletin, Alert, Advisory, Severe Weather State- understand what our definitions are. What constitutes ment, Special Weather Statement, etc. Only we know the "Heavy snow, severe thunderstorm, high wind, gale, difference and there are times when even we are not winter storm, etc., etc.," is a mystery to much of the sure. Let's keep descriptive titles to a minimum.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/05/21 08:26 AM UTC 1586 Vol. 59, No. 12, December 1978

FIG. 4. Example of a weather release for a restricted coastal area.

And these are some comments from those NWS em- be solicited on a regular basis to better educate the public ployees who do not feel the present system should be to NWS terminology. changed: More often people misunderstand what we mean by the specific event—for instance, a thunderstorm may be No changes. Just a matter of continuing efforts to educate hailing, . . . raining, and blowing like crazy, but fail to the public. Indications are that progress is being made meet our definition of severe. toward educating the general public in understanding our terminology. No changes in terminology. (Note that public still calls us Weather Bureau.) We make slow progress and each time we change our terminology we wipe out years of educational effort. 6. Need for additional studies There are no good words. We have tried "alerts"—it is no better. Clearly, there is a lot left to learn about the public's I cannot suggest any better terminology than used understanding of hazardous weather terminology. Also, presently. I feel that help from local broadcasters should judging from our attempts to learn it through normal

FIG. 5. Areal coverage of a hurricane watch (left) and a hurricane warning (right). The watch will cover as much as 600 mi of coastline, while the warning area will be 300 mi or less. Warn- ings are normally issued between .12 and 24 h before landfall, and watches from 36 h to oc- casionally as much as 48 h before landfall.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/05/21 08:26 AM UTC Bulletin American Meteorological Society 1587

FIG. 6. Areal coverage of a severe weather watch (left) and a severe weather warning (right). Many counties are placed on Watch, but only a few are Warned. The watch is valid for ~6 h; the warning is valid for h. The severe weather watch area is along and 70 statute miles either side of a line from 30 statute miles southwest of Altus, Okla., to 30 statute miles south-southeast of Tulsa, Okla. The severe weather warning area includes Stephens, Carter, Murray, and Garvin counties. The warning was based on a tornado sighting (cross) to the southwest of Duncan, Okla.

NWS contact with the public, we cannot count on arriv- Bates, F. L., C. W. Fogelman, V. J. Parenton, R. H. Pittman, ing at the proper conclusions. Therefore, more direct and G. S. Tracy, 1963: The Social and Psychological Conse- studies of the public are needed. quences of a Natural Disaster: A Longitudinal Study of . National Research Council Publ. 1081, One such study is already underway. This is a 3-year National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 190 pp. effort by the University of Minnesota (Carter et al., Bureau of the Census, 1977: Final Report—Weather Data 1978) with strong NWS involvement, which should be Needs Survey 1977. NOAA, Rockville, Md., 88 pp. the most comprehensive study to date of the public's Carter, T. M., J. P. Clark, R. K. Leik, and G. A. Fine, 1978: understanding of and response to hazardous weather. Social factors affecting the dissemination of and response The NWS also hopes to conduct some surveys to find to warnings. 11th Technical Conference on Hurricanes and out what the public understands about weather in Tropical (Miami), AMS, Boston, pp. 302-309. general. Caskey, J. E., Jr., (Ed.), 1970: A Century of Weather Progress. AMS, Boston, 170 pp. 7. Conclusions Christensen, L., and C. E. Ruch, 1977: Evaluation of Hurri- Judging from the public studies and even the survey of cane Awareness Program. Industrial Economics Research NWS employees, there appears to be a correlation be- Div., Texas A&M University, College Station, 66 pp. Cornog, J. R., and C. V. E. Bickert, 1969: Consumer Reac- tween the length of time a term is used and the public's tions to the Weather Bureau and Its Services. Systems understanding. Of course, the frequency of the event, Plans and Design Div., U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washing- the amount of publicity the terminology receives, and ton, D.C., 194 pp. the extent of public education all play a role in the ESSA, 1970: The Lubbock, Texas, Tornado, May 11, 1970— public's understanding. A Report to the Administrator. ESSA NDSR 70-1 Rock- There is also a need for education of all concerned. ville, Md., 24 pp. This can be especially important at the university level Federal Register, 1977: Warning and preparedness for where meteorologists destined for work with the public geologic-related hazards, Part 3. Vol. 42, No. 77, 19295. should be instructed on how to relate to and understand Gales, D. M., 1977: A Survey on Forecast Semantics. Western the public. At the same time, organizations (e.g., the Region Tech. Attach. 77-5, NWS, NOAA, Salt Lake City, 4 pp. media and educational facilities) and others should spend Gruntfest, E. C., 1977: What People Did during the Big more time in educating the public in the language of Thompson Flood. Natural Hazard Res. Working Pap. 32, the meteorologist. These efforts, in conjunction with the Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, educational efforts of the NWS and other agencies, will Boulder, 64 pp. help everyone understand the NWS's hazardous weather Mogil, H. M., and H. S. Groper, 1977: NWS's severe local terminology and will foster needed feedback to the storm warning and disaster preparedness programs. Bull. operational meteorological community. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 58, 318-328. Finally, there is a need for more studies about the , J. C. Monro, and H. S, Groper, 1978: NWS's flash flood weather user. warning and disaster preparedness programs. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 59, 690-699. References Moore, H. E., F. L. Bates, M. V. Layman, et al., 1963: Before AT&T, 1971: Weather Announcement Study. Market and the Wind: A Study of the Response to Hurricane Carla. Service Plans Dept., American Telephone and Telegraph, Disaster Study 19, National Research Council Publ. 1095, New York, 28 pp. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 164 pp.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/05/21 08:26 AM UTC 1588 Vol. 59, No. 12, December 1978

NOAA, 1971: Mississippi Delta Tornadoes of February 21, Pifer, B. E., 1978: User assumptions in tropical re- 1971—A Report to the Administrator. NOAA NDSR 71-2, search. 11th Technical Conference on Hurricanes and Rockville, Md., 57 pp. Tropical Meteorology (Miami), AMS, Boston, pp. 310-314. , 1972: Black Hills Flood of June 9, 1972—A Report to U.S. Weather Bureau, 1933: The Hurricane Warning Service, the Administrator. NOAA NDSR 72-1, Rockville, Md., U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 4 pp. 20 pp. , 1947: Manual of Instructions for Hurricane Warning , 1973: Final Report of the Disaster Survey Team on the Service. WB No. 1324, Washington, D.C., 18 pp. Events of Agnes—A Report to the Administrator. NOAA , 1965: Report of Palm Sunday Tornadoes of 1965. NDSR 73-1, Rockville, Md., 45 pp. Washington, D.C. 64 pp. , 1974: The Widespread Tornado Outbreak of April 3-4, Wilkinson, K. P., and P. J. Ross, 1970: Citizen's Responses 1974—A Report to the Administrator. NDSR 74-1, Rock- to Warnings of Hurricane Camille. Social Sci. Res. Center ville, Md., 42 pp. , 1975: Hurricane Eloise: The Gulf Coast—A Report to Rept. 35, Mississippi State University, State College, 58 pp. the Administrator. NDSR 75-1, Rockville, Md., 34 pp. Windham, G. O., E. I. Posey, P. J. Ross, and B. G. Spencer, , 1976: Big Thompson Canyon Flash Flood of July 31- 1977: Reactions to Storm Threat during Hurricane Eloise. August 1, 1976—A Report to the Administrator. NDSR Social Sci. Res. Center Rept. 51, Mississippi State University, 76-1, Rockville, Md., 41 pp. State College, 74 pp. •

announcements continued from page 1582 All correspondence, abstracts, and papers should be sent to: National Organizing Committee, IFAC-Water Systems Symposium on water and related land resource 1980, c/o AGU Meetings, American Geophysical Union, 1909 systems—Call for Papers K St., N.W., Wash., D.C. 20006 (tel: 202-331-0370). An IFAC symposium on Water and Related Land Resource Systems will be held 28-31 May 1980 at Case Institute of FGGE research proposals Technology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Very limited research funds in support of FGGE (Global Ohio. The symposium is sponsored by the IFAC (Interna- Weather Experiment) are expected to be available from tional Federation of Automatic Control) Committee on Sys- NOAA and the National Science Foundation in 1979. A sig- tems Engineering, and cosponsored by the American Geo- nificant increase in funds is expected in 1980 with the bulk physical Union, Case Institute of Technology of Case Western of research funds in both agencies to be available in fiscal Reserve University, the International Water Resources Asso- years 1981 through 1985. The experiment is designed to: ciation, and the World Environment and Resources Council. obtain a better understanding of atmospheric motion for de- The symposium is designed to provide a broad intradisci- velopment of more realistic models for weather prediction; plinary exchange of views and experiences among scientists, assess the ultimate limit of predictability of weather systems; engineers, planners, and public officials on water and related design an optimum composite meteorological observing sys- land resource issues and problems. The program will include tem for routine numerical weather prediction of the larger- two plenary sessions each day; parallel sessions that include scale features of the general circulation; and investigate, invited special sessions with contributed papers and round within a one year observation period, physical mechanisms table discussions and workshop sessions; and an exhibition of underlying fluctuations in the time range of a few literature on symposium topics. Authors are invited to offer weeks to a few years and to develop and test appropriate papers on a number of topics. Those most likely to interest climatic models. Research proposals will be accepted from BULLETIN readers include: climate and water supply; floods university, industry, and government agency scientists. Uni- and ; groundwater and its conjunctive use with versity or industry scientists requesting information and/or surface water; data acquisition, evaluation, and processing; research support from the above agencies should forward scientific and technical information transfer; and environ- their proposals to: Climate Dynamics Research Section, mental and ecological aspects of water and land resource GARP, Rm. 644, National Science Foundation, Wash., D.C. systems. Abstracts of papers in English (200-300 words) and 20550, c/o Dr. Richard Greenfield or Dr. Jay Fein (tel: 202- 5 copies of a questionnaire (which may be obtained from the 634-1538). Government agency scientists should request in- contact listed below) should be received no later than 1 May formation and/or send proposals to: U.S. FGGE Project 1979. Papers will be pre-selected on the basis of these ab- Office, NOAA, 6010 Executive Blvd., Rockville, Md. 20852 stracts. Authors of pre-selected papers will receive instructions (tel: 301-443-8861). A lead time of at least 6 months is needed for preparation of the full paper by 15 August 1979. Full to review all proposals. In addition to the above program, papers must be submitted in reproducible form by 1 No- NASA is also planning a FGGE research program, empha- vember 1979. Authors will be notified of final paper accept- sizing the application of satellite data to the forecasting ance by 15 January 1980. Accepted papers must be typed for problem. The first funding increment for the NASA research camera-ready reproduction for symposium preprints by 15 program will not occur before 1980. Those wishing further March 1980. Only papers that have not been published and information, or who wish to receive an Announcement of are not being considered for publication elsewhere may be Opportunity when issued, should forward requests to: Mr. submitted. The IFAC holds the copyright for publication of James R. Greaves, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, papers. One set of preprints is included in the registration Md. 20771 (tel: 301-982-2624). fee for authors and participants, which is estimated to be $120 before 1 May 1980 and $135 after that date. Continued on page 1617

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/05/21 08:26 AM UTC