AccuWeather Strikes Again

[isohume]

Agreed, and whats so comical is that a few here think the bashing reflects brilliance when its actually an embarrassment to this forum. As I told you in the PM I sent. If it wasnt for the mets and pro forecasters who post some really great stuff here, no one would care to visit or post in this forum at all.

Count me in as one of the ones who has not witnessed threats to Accuwx here. Is there a link somewhere?

[Master of Disaster]

Count me in as one of the ones who has not witnessed threats to Accuwx here. Is there a link somewhere?

Scott, if some of the things said in this thread were said about you or your employeer? Would you be happy about it? Would you want to continue a discussion here? A "threat" is all about how the person who reads it, perceives it. Right?

[isohume]

Scott, if some of the things said in this thread were said about you or your employeer? Would you be happy about it? Would you want to continue a discussion here? A "threat" is all about how the person who reads it, perceives it. Right?

To be fair, Accuwx says some rather disparaging things about my employer on many occasions. I don't consider these threats by Accuwx, I consider them noise. But you are right, folks certainly do have differing ideas on what constitutes a "threat".

[The Dude]

Agreed, and whats so comical is that a few here think the bashing reflects brilliance when its actually an embarrassment to this forum. As I told you in the PM I sent. If it wasnt for the mets and pro forecasters who post some really great stuff here, no one would care to visit or post in this forum at all.

Tony,

What are you talking about? Can you point to some posts? Other than a weenie or two, most of the conversation in here has been very pointed, but very fair.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Agreed, and whats so comical is that a few here think the bashing reflects brilliance when its actually an embarrassment to this forum. As I told you in the PM I sent. If it wasnt for the mets and pro forecasters who post some really great stuff here, no one would care to visit or post in this forum at all.

Considering your history on both here and Eastern, I suggest anyone take advice from you with a large boulder of salt.

Like many have said, it is fair to call out AccuWeather in situations like this based on their past attacks on NWS. No one from what I have seen has actually threatened AccuWeather or their mets on this forum, so please provide proof of that as others have asked. The vast majority of people respect the individual meteorologists at AccuWeather and what they have to go through... and they can do that without having an ounce of respect for the people who run the company and where they choose to set their priorities.

[usedtobe]

Considering your history on both here and Eastern, I suggest anyone take advice from you with a large boulder of salt.

Like many have said, it is fair to call out AccuWeather in situations like this based on their past attacks on NWS. No one from what I have seen has actually threatened AccuWeather or their mets on this forum, so please provide proof of that as others have asked. The vast majority of people respect the individual meteorologists at AccuWeather and what they have to go through... and they can do that without having an ounce of respect for the people who run the company and where they choose to set their priorities.

I couldn't have said it better. No one is attacking the mets. Many of us have said they have some talented forecasters and some very smart people working there. . Our beef is how in the past Accuwx management and a very few of the mets have attacked the NWS forecasts and then have failed to address their own errors and in this case actually spun that there was a tornado to the south suggesting the forecast was not a bad one, the tornado was way to the south and not anywhere near College Park. If you throw out criticism, you need to be able to take it. I applaud Jesse for posting here but his claim about people threatening Accuwx is bogus.

[Master of Disaster]

Considering your history on both here and Eastern, I suggest anyone take advice from you with a large boulder of salt.

Like many have said, it is fair to call out AccuWeather in situations like this based on their past attacks on NWS. No one from what I have seen has actually threatened AccuWeather or their mets on this forum, so please provide proof of that as others have asked. The vast majority of people respect the individual meteorologists at AccuWeather and what they have to go through... and they can do that without having an ounce of respect for the people who run the company and where they choose to set their priorities.

Yea, because its really fookin clear that this is a mature discussion going on here and all. I am sorry if I gave you some indication that I honestly give a crap about your opinion of my "history". I dont need your permission to post or write anything on here. By all means, feel free to keep bashing if it makes you feel good about yourself. In the end, its only you that looks rediculous for it.

[Master of Disaster]

I couldn't have said it better. No one is attacking the mets. Many of us have said they have some talented forecasters and some very smart people working there. . Our beef is how in the past Accuwx management and a very few of the mets have attacked the NWS forecasts and then have failed to address their own errors and in this case actually spun that there was a tornado to the south suggesting the forecast was not a bad one, the tornado was way to the south and not anywhere near College Park. If you throw out criticism, you need to be able to take it. I applaud Jesse for posting here but his claim about people threatening Accuwx is bogus.

Really Guys?

From the FIRST 4 pages of this thread alone

On the flip side, UMD should have also paid more attention to the NWS instead of brazenly warning the entire campus based on a questionable alert system from a private company.

Oh accuwx had the thing warned all the way through? Not surprised, Accuwx always overkillz. I was under the impression it was the heavy straight-line winds bordering an area of more stagnant air that sparked the warning but regardless I'm not sure why anyone would choose accuwx over the NWS, one is free, one is not..

AccuWeather is crap-- a disgrace to the meteorological community. With regard to the tropics, they bring no value. Even when I'm starved for new analysis on an existing cyclone, I won't even go on their Website-- because I know every word published there is aimed at traffic traffic traffic. So the value of their opinion is pretty-much zero. Actually, it's less than zero, because I believe they deliberately exaggerate threats to create drama.

This aside, almost everything they publish Re: tropical-- whether it be a forecast or a post-mortem opinion-- is useless crap: either drama-queen, ratings-driven pronouncements of catastrophe (for impending seasons/events) or after-the-fact exaggerations aimed at making the NHC look bad.

Serious, we never think of Accuweather, what they're up to or how to out fox them. The only time we think of them is when they get some congressman in their pocket and try to lobby for some asinine anti-NWS legislation.

I don't see how or why the NWS would want to compete with an entertainment company.

Re: tropical cyclones, it's black and white: they are crap and they have no credibility.

You say no one is attacking the mets at Accuweather but they are the back bone of the company. So, SOME of you are indeed attacking them. Notice I say SOME. Certainly NOT everyone in this thread is doing so.

Why would UMD need to go to a private company for weather alerts? Cause to be honest, I cant remember the last time I received a personal alert from the NWS on anything. If I am on their email list, I get every MD or warning issued for the entire country, state, or county, or I get nothing. I get email alerts through EAS because I am connected there but UMD doesnt have access to EAS. So for UMD you want them to keep refreshing the NWS webpage for up to date info? Why cant they receive campus alerts from the NWS that are automated?

Another example is the CAP messages they send out. I cant do a freakin thing with that nonsense. So I have to retype it and send my own alert. I dont need to know all the areas outside of my area that are warned, I just need to know what areas inside are warned. Try sending a message in all caps to residents of Bethesda and see how long it takes for the County Council to call you back with complaints.

[AtticaFanatica]

There's no threats there, I think that was the overriding point.

[Bozart]

UMD doesnt have access to EAS

I'll mail them a Weather Radio if they need one.

[Master of Disaster]

I'll mail them a Weather Radio if they need one.

And then what? Hope they are in the office when it goes off? How about an app that can be downloaded on blackberries or phones that relays the information?

[Master of Disaster]

There's no threats there, I think that was the overriding point.

Where did I say there was?

[AtticaFanatica]

Where did I say there was?

You posted "agreed" in reply to Jesse's post, which was interpreted, perhaps incorrectly, as an agreement with his point about threats against him and AccuWeather.

[Zachary Lassiter]

And then what? Hope they are in the office when it goes off? How about an app that can be downloaded on blackberries or phones that relays the information?

already done?

would they like their hand held too?

[Bozart]

And then what? Hope they are in the office when it goes off?

I'm sure they have an office that is staffed 24/7.

How about an app that can be downloaded on blackberries or phones that relays the information?

They're great. I get alerts on my Android. Love 'em. Of course, that cellphone drains me of $85/mo. for the privilege, but so far I've been able to pay it. Knock on wood.

Homeland Security has in the last few years provided all schools in the U.S., public and private, secondary and higher-ed, with WR-SAME-equipped Weather Radio receivers. Since Weather Radio is enmeshed with EAS, it isn't quite true to say UMD has no EAS -- at least, when speaking of storm warnings. I have a Weather Radio receiver on my night stand, so I have access to EAS alerts, too.

All the campus sirens went off, upsetting and confusing town neighbors, because UMD listened to the wrong device that day.

[isohume]

And then what? Hope they are in the office when it goes off? How about an app that can be downloaded on blackberries or phones that relays the information?

http://inws.wrh.noaa.gov/

[SmokeEater]

As usual OEM disappears when asked to provide real proof to his claims. Nobody was threatening Accuweather in this thread. Did they get a little harsh against them? Yes. And with their past history of constantly bashing the NWS, what do they expect to happen when they are drastically wrong about a major issue? The main point everyone was questioning, was this part of Jesse's post. Though no tornadoes subsequently touched down on the College Park campus, we had verified the conditions that create tornadoes were present. And then when everybody questioned him on it, he came back and said that he and Accuweather were threatened. Which none of the like happened. When you come up with a statement like that, of course people are going to question you.

[Master of Disaster]

As usual OEM disappears when asked to provide real proof to his claims. Nobody was threatening Accuweather in this thread. Did they get a little harsh against them? Yes. And with their past history of constantly bashing the NWS, what do they expect to happen when they are drastically wrong about a major issue? The main point everyone was questioning, was this part of Jesse's post. Though no tornadoes subsequently touched down on the College Park campus, we had verified the conditions that create tornadoes were present. And then when everybody questioned him on it, he came back and said that he and Accuweather were threatened. Which none of the like happened. When you come up with a statement like that, of course people are going to question you.

As usual you have a prolific problem reading the english language. What claims? I think we have now determined that I never said there were threats. Another issue I think is clear is that 99% of the bashing in this threat is based off of total nonsense and false assumptions. If you guys want to assume the roll of public alerting magistrates, one of you can at least have the balls to contact UMD and ask them about the alert. They use the same alerting system we do I believe called Roam Secure (RSAN). I mean, this is a "top notch" weather forum and all. So maybe you top notch posters should perhaps get to some top notch posting based on something other than assumptions or 7 page running diatribes. Or you know what, maybe ill do it. I know the EM over there. At least then, perhaps we can discuss some factual information other than someone sent an alert. The basis was Accuweather. And Accuweather sucks and its their fault.

[phlwx]

Scott, if some of the things said in this thread were said about you or your employeer? Would you be happy about it? Would you want to continue a discussion here? A "threat" is all about how the person who reads it, perceives it. Right?

As usual you have a prolific problem reading the english language. What claims? I think we have now determined that I never said there were threats. Another issue I think is clear is that 99% of the bashing in this threat is based off of total nonsense and false assumptions. If you guys want to assume the roll of public alerting magistrates, one of you can at least have the balls to contact UMD and ask them about the alert. They use the same alerting system we do I believe called Roam Secure (RSAN). I mean, this is a "top notch" weather forum and all. So maybe you top notch posters should perhaps get to some top notch posting based on something other than assumptions or 7 page running diatribes. Or you know what, maybe ill do it. I know the EM over there. At least then, perhaps we can discuss some factual information.

You came to Jesse's defense though. Feel free (you, Jesse, or anyone) to point out who specifically threatened AccuWeather in this thread since you seem to be so willing to carry their water.

[SmokeEater]

As usual you have a prolific problem reading the english language. What claims? I think we have now determined that I never said there were threats. Another issue I think is clear is that 99% of the bashing in this threat is based off of total nonsense and false assumptions. If you guys want to assume the roll of public alerting magistrates, one of you can at least have the balls to contact UMD and ask them about the alert. They use the same alerting system we do I believe called Roam Secure (RSAN). I mean, this is a "top notch" weather forum and all. So maybe you top notch posters should perhaps get to some top notch posting based on something other than assumptions or 7 page running diatribes. Or you know what, maybe ill do it. I know the EM over there. At least then, perhaps we can discuss some factual information other than someone sent an alert. The basis was Accuweather. And Accuweather sucks and its their fault.

Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal. What do you consider false assumptions? The fact that AccuWX sent a warning out saying a tornado will strike the UMD campus within 13 minutes, and counted down till 5 minutes, and followed that text by saying disregard all future warnings? When all the while, there was no rotation on radar whatsoever, no reports of tornadoes in the PG County area, or warnings from NWS. Or the fact that AccuWX has constantly bashed the NWS and SPC? Because they are the 2 main points brought up in this thread, other then people stating that no threats were made to Jesse or AccuWX. If you think you can find nonsense and false assumptions in this thread, please enlighten me.

[Master of Disaster]

You came to Jesse's defense though. Feel free (you, Jesse, or anyone) to point out who specifically threatened AccuWeather in this thread since you seem to be so willing to carry their water.

Fair enough. I can tell you with no research what so ever that that area had an NWS unwarned tornado touchdown 2 or so years ago which may have damaged some confidence in the NWS warning system. I remember having a conversation with LWX about it because I make it a point to try and gather ALL of the facts about an event that sparks my interest so we can learn from it even though it didnt affect me or my county directly. What I was told was that the NWS was using terminal dopplar out of Andrews when the tornado hit. It was an odd South to North propagating squall line that triggered the tornado and the couplet was obvious according to the NWS for exactly TWO sweeps. If I was the EM at UMD, that would have made me question if we need a second or third system for information.

[The Dude]

Fair enough. I can tell you with no research what so ever that that area had an NWS unwarned tornado touchdown 2 or so years ago which may have damaged some confidence in the NWS warning system. I remember having a conversation with LWX about it because I make it a point to try and gather ALL of the facts about an event that sparks my interest so we can learn from it even though it didnt affect me or my county directly. What I was told was that the NWS was using terminal dopplar out of Andrews when the tornado hit. It was an odd South to North propagating squall line that triggered the tornado and the couplet was obvious according to the NWS for exactly TWO sweeps. If I was the EM at UMD, that would have made me question if we need a second or third system for information.

I don't think anyone is criticizing MD for using a second or third system for information.

I think there are three points that people are rightfully criticizing.

1. UMD issuing a warning that stated with complete certainty that a tornado was going to hit campus within X minutes despite the fact that there was neither a tornado on the ground nor a radar signature suggesting a tornado. As you know, these types of false warnings can lead to warning fatigue, thus undermining future efforts to protect students/staff at UMD.

2. In defending his issuance of the warning, the UMD official said he didn't have time to look at NWS. Thus, contrary to your instincts--with which I certainly agree--he wasn't using a second or third system for information, but rather was relying exclusively on Accuweather.

3. Accuweather attempted to justify the warning by claiming there was a tornado to the south of campus, and that NWS warnings weren't too far away. As others have noted, there were no tornadoes within dozens of miles of campus, and the tornado warnings had expired quite a while before UMD issued theirs.

On all three points, I believe UMD/Accuweather acted wrong. UMD should have consulted other sources; if it decided to issue a warning, it needed to better reflect the actual situation; and Accuweather should have acknowledged the warning was overzealous.

[Bozart]

1. UMD issuing a warning that stated with complete certainty that a tornado was going to hit campus within X minutes despite the fact that there was neither a tornado on the ground nor a radar signature suggesting a tornado.

I don't think it's accurate to say that UMD conveyed "complete certainty." According to the Capital Weather Gang write-up linked in the OP, UMD disseminated this text alert: "A tornado is forecast to strike the campus within the next 13 minutes." That's a forecast, not a stated certainty.

As an aside, it's still not clear to me exactly whose wording that was in the text alert, nor what message content AccuWeather sent to UMD, nor whether or how UMD may have interpreted or altered the message on their own.

[Master of Disaster]

I don't think anyone is criticizing MD for using a second or third system for information.

I think there are three points that people are rightfully criticizing.

1. UMD issuing a warning that stated with complete certainty that a tornado was going to hit campus within X minutes despite the fact that there was neither a tornado on the ground nor a radar signature suggesting a tornado. As you know, these types of false warnings can lead to warning fatigue, thus undermining future efforts to protect students/staff at UMD.

2. In defending his issuance of the warning, the UMD official said he didn't have time to look at NWS. Thus, contrary to your instincts--with which I certainly agree--he wasn't using a second or third system for information, but rather was relying exclusively on Accuweather.

3. Accuweather attempted to justify the warning by claiming there was a tornado to the south of campus, and that NWS warnings weren't too far away. As others have noted, there were no tornadoes within dozens of miles of campus, and the tornado warnings had expired quite a while before UMD issued theirs.

On all three points, I believe UMD/Accuweather acted wrong. UMD should have consulted other sources; if it decided to issue a warning, it needed to better reflect the actual situation; and Accuweather should have acknowledged the warning was overzealous.

Agreed 100% on point one and two. Point 3, ehhh sort of. There was a tornado watch for the region at that time AND a tornado warning had been issued for Fairfax County. The nearest confirmed tornado was 23 miles from campus. So the NWS warnings were indeed not that far away. In fact they were in a county that shares a border with PG. I am certainly NOT justifying what was sent. But I am questioning why posters here seem so surprised that no one from Accuweather would want to post anything here.

[Master of Disaster]

As an aside, it's still not clear to me exactly whose wording that was in the text alert, nor what message content AccuWeather sent to UMD, nor whether or how UMD may have interpreted or altered the message on their own.

EXACTLY my point.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Yea, because its really fookin clear that this is a mature discussion going on here and all. I am sorry if I gave you some indication that I honestly give a crap about your opinion of my "history". I dont need your permission to post or write anything on here. By all means, feel free to keep bashing if it makes you feel good about yourself. In the end, its only you that looks rediculous for it.

It is without such input as your post here. If you can't have an honest discussion, please leave the thread.

Really Guys?

From the FIRST 4 pages of this thread alone

You say no one is attacking the mets at Accuweather but they are the back bone of the company. So, SOME of you are indeed attacking them. Notice I say SOME. Certainly NOT everyone in this thread is doing so.

Why would UMD need to go to a private company for weather alerts? Cause to be honest, I cant remember the last time I received a personal alert from the NWS on anything. If I am on their email list, I get every MD or warning issued for the entire country, state, or county, or I get nothing. I get email alerts through EAS because I am connected there but UMD doesnt have access to EAS. So for UMD you want them to keep refreshing the NWS webpage for up to date info? Why cant they receive campus alerts from the NWS that are automated?

Another example is the CAP messages they send out. I cant do a freakin thing with that nonsense. So I have to retype it and send my own alert. I dont need to know all the areas outside of my area that are warned, I just need to know what areas inside are warned. Try sending a message in all caps to residents of Bethesda and see how long it takes for the County Council to call you back with complaints.

You are missing the point entirely. It isn't the individual meteorologists at AccuWeather who have decided that AccuWeather should attack the NWS for minor issues, and then when AccuWeather has a similar or worse issue (which tends to happen more often than it does for the NWS), they put out an insufficient, bent press release as they did for this event. Who is it that decided that they should constantly attack the NWS? I will let you think about that.

That doesn't even mention the overarching point of this thread: Private companies should absolutely not issue localized warnings for severe/emergency situations that conflict with the NWS as it can propagate mass confusion. Sure there is nothing wrong with alerting a client to a situation in a targeted message, but if it conflicts with the NWS, that is unacceptable.

[Master of Disaster]

It is without such input as your post here. If you can't have an honest discussion, please leave the thread.

You are missing the point entirely. It isn't the individual meteorologists at AccuWeather who have decided that AccuWeather should attack the NWS for minor issues, and then when AccuWeather has a similar or worse issue (which tends to happen more often than it does for the NWS), they put out an insufficient, bent press release as they did for this event. Who is it that decided that they should constantly attack the NWS? I will let you think about that.

That doesn't even mention the overarching point of this thread: Private companies should absolutely not issue localized warnings for severe/emergency situations that conflict with the NWS as it can propagate mass confusion. Sure there is nothing wrong with alerting a client to a situation in a targeted message, but if it conflicts with the NWS, that is unacceptable.

You know, kind of an interesting post. Back in the 1950s, the word "Tornado" was banned from all alerts/warnings by the government. Finally one on air Meteorologist in Oklahoma decided to hell with the Weather Bureau/NWS and what everyone thinks is ok and he used the word "tornado" on air. There were no mass suicides or "mass confusion" over this, but most realized that perhaps sometimes, everyone as a collective whole does NOT know whats best for others. As far as the NWS, reduce your FAR below 25% and then come back and talk to the world about what you think conflicts with a NWS message and is unacceptable. Cause to be honest, its kind of comical with the FAR you guys currently have how you would have a problem with anyone else sending out their own stuff.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

You know, kind of an interesting post. Back in the 1950s, the word "Tornado" was banned from all alerts/warnings by the government. Finally one on air Meteorologist in Oklahoma decided to hell with the Weather Bureau/NWS and what everyone thinks is ok and he used the word "tornado" on air. There were no mass suicides over this, but most realized that perhaps sometimes, everyone as a collective whole does NOT know whats best for others. As far as the NWS, reduce your FAR below 25% and then come back and talk to the world about what you think conflicts with a NWS message and is unacceptable. Cause to be honest, its kind of comical with the FAR you guys currently have how you would have a problem with anyone else sending out their own stuff.

That is a completely unrealistic comparison, and you know it. First, it isn't the 1950s anymore. The NWS issues polygon-based warnings now from scientific evidence accumulated from various sources.

Second, regarding the FAR... realize what you are arguing here... You are saying the NWS doesn't have credibility because their FAR is too high, and that private companies should be able to make their own warnings even if they conflict with the NWS. So... one of two things will result from this... either it will increase the overall FAR for the public (because the general public doesn't care where the information comes from) as it did in this situation... or if they act more conservatively in notifying for warnings... what then when a tornado actually strikes somewhere that went unwarned by the company? Sure the FAR is high for the NWS now... they have recognized that and are working on ways to rectify it... but the solution for that is absolutely not to create mass confusion in the public.

Also, I don't know why you are replying to me with "you guys" in reference to the NWS. I do not work for the NWS... in fact, I am planning on going into emergency management and disaster policy.

[Master of Disaster]

That is a completely unrealistic comparison, and you know it. First, it isn't the 1950s anymore. The NWS issues polygon-based warnings now from scientific evidence accumulated from various sources.

Second, regarding the FAR... realize what you are arguing here... You are saying the NWS doesn't have credibility because their FAR is too high, and that private companies should be able to make their own warnings even if they conflict with the NWS. So... one of two things will result from this... either it will increase the overall FAR for the public (because the general public doesn't care where the information comes from) as it did in this situation... or if they act more conservatively in notifying for warnings... what then when a tornado actually strikes somewhere that went unwarned by the company? Sure the FAR is high for the NWS now... they have recognized that and are working on ways to rectify it... but the solution for that is absolutely not to create mass confusion in the public.

Also, I don't know why you are replying to me with "you guys" in reference to the NWS. I do not work for the NWS... in fact, I am planning on going into emergency management and disaster policy.

No, its not unrealistic at all. The point was that more information is better and on occasion, no one needs anyone else to tell them whats best for their population. Yes I am saying the NWS loses some credibility based of off its FAR. While you may argue a different opinion, most of us know its true AND have read the Joplin case study in support of that conclusion. Again, "mass confusion"? I think when you finally arrive into the world of Emergency Management, you are going to find that the public doesn't need you to hold their hand. They are quite capable of interpreting information AND acting on it if we stop dictating what information we think they should have available. Didnt mean to imply you work for the NWS, it was just a vague reference to your support for them.

Side note, glad to see you plan on entering the EM field. You should do well with your background in weather in this field.

[isohume]

Funny how this thread went from criticism on how Accuwx justifies their tornado alert with unrelated events...to bashing the NWS for verifying their tornado warnings with actual events.