Since tornadoes are a form of weather, they would be predicted by a meteorologist.
A meteorologist.
A meteorologist.
There is no specific word for a scientist who studies tornadoes. Such scientists would fall under the general label of meteorologists; weather scientists.
No. Even in a very large tornado it would likely be only a few hundred yards wide.
A a radar is better: it can detect a tornado at a distance. A barometer would be of no use unless the tornado came dangerously close.
A meteorologist.
A meteorologist.
The National Hurricane Center predicts, or at least tries to predict, hurricanes in the vicinity of the U.S.
Anything that is realistic and something you can teach someone. Science is a way of knowing so you can predict anything.
Time to rejoice!
It is important for scientists to develop ways to predict earthquakes. By it they can measure when the next one would be.
Oklahoma would be the one most likely to have a tornado. However, all of these states have had tornadoes, and North Dakota is fairly tornado prone.
There is no specific word for a scientist who studies tornadoes. Such scientists would fall under the general label of meteorologists; weather scientists.
Only to a very limited degree. Scientists can determine when conditions are favorable for tornadoes to develop (in which case a tornado watch is issued), or even if a tornado may be developing (which would prompt a tornado warning), but cannot predict exactly where or when a tornado will touch down.
A tornado, most likely. However, few pressure readings have ever been taken from tornadoes.
No. Even in a very large tornado it would likely be only a few hundred yards wide.
A large enough explosion probably would disrupt a tornado, so yes. However, no real scientist has ever put serious though toward this problem, as any bomb powerful enough to stop a tornado would cause more damage than the tornado itself.