Master of Disaster Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 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. I am an equal opportunity offender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted October 25, 2011 Author Share Posted October 25, 2011 No, its not unrealistic at all. The point was that more information is better and on occasion People do not have the time in tornadic situations to sift through gobs of information from various sources... you do realize that, right? By the time they get on their 5th source from whatever TV network's Tornado MaxxAlert™ and what is different between it and an opposing TV network's Tornado WhizBang™ and an NWS Tornado Warning, they could be putting themselves in danger. no one needs anyone else to tell them whats best for their population. So why, then, have multiple sources for different tornado warnings that give different advice on what to do? This is precisely why the NWS should be the only source. They come under a warning, review the radar, and then local officials decide if they should turn on their local EAS, etc. That is all that needs to be done. Going through multiple sources of warning information wastes time and endangers others. 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. I didn't argue differently at all... please reread my argument. In this instance, for example, the AccuWeather warning increased the FAR in the public's minds. To me, you can't argue that the NWS loses credibility off of their FAR when AccuWeather and others have a higher FAR. That doesn't make sense. Again, "mass confusion"? I'm not sure what is so confusing about that. People have stated in surrounding neighborhoods to UMD that they didn't understand why UMD's sirens were going off when the surrounding areas weren't. That is called 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. I take it you haven't read much about Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans? In this situation, there was plenty of evidence of what was going to happen from both the NWS and private sources.... and yes, many took heed. However, at the same time, many didn't and local officials did not act properly on the information that was given to them. Now, for the moment, let's say there are private companies giving more information... different hurricane warnings, advisory information etc. Let's say the NWS has their normal 1-minute average sustained wind, AccuWeather goes by highest gust, and TWC goes by 10-minute sustained... and let's say that AccuWeather has a broader Hurricane Warning area telling everyone to evacuate the coast from New Orleans to Fort Walton Beach, whereas TWC has a much narrower warning area telling people to leave from New Orleans to the western Mississippi coast. Overall, as a whole, how does this improve decision making? There is simply too much conflicting information from too many different sources to make a proper decision. What if Mobile County, AL used AccuWeather's information but Jackson County, MS used TWC's? It would confuse many people in the public as to why Mobile County was telling their citizens to evacuate but Jackson County, to the west, was not. Side note, glad to see you plan on entering the EM field. You should do well with your background in weather in this field. Thanks... I'm greatly looking forward to continuing my studies in this area and improving public education, awareness, and preparedness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 OEM is arguing to argue. Let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedtobe Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 OEM is arguing to argue. Let it go. That's my take on it. That's why I'm through with the thread. It's not worth arguing about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master of Disaster Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 OEM is arguing to argue. Let it go. Good point. My bad, now back to the Accuweather bashing that was going on even though I thought PSU had some really great points to discuss. Carry on fellas!! Let the one liners fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 I am an equal opportunity offender. Except you didn't seem bothered by the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 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. The NWS has pretty much maximized its lead time and POD/FAR based on the available science. Any decrease in the FAR will HAVE to mean a lower POD, that's just where we're at scientifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master of Disaster Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 The NWS has pretty much maximized its lead time and POD/FAR based on the available science. Any decrease in the FAR will HAVE to mean a lower POD, that's just where we're at scientifically. Have they done any studies on how/if the dual pol upgrades can/may decrease that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFanatica Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Have they done any studies on how/if the dual pol upgrades can/may decrease that? At this point, polarimetric obs are diagnostic rather than predictive. There's a lot of ongoing work in the area, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Have they done any studies on how/if the dual pol upgrades can/may decrease that? Operationally, Dual Pol will help with precipitation processing and improving FFW numbers. The legacy RDA/RPG products will remain the main svr-wx tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 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. Fair enough. That said, such language displays a far greater degree of certainty that the public is used to with NWS warnings. Typically such language conveys a known tornado on the ground, although I realize the general public probably doesn't pick up on such nuance. 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. My understanding is that the language in the alert was UMD's. I don't think I've seen anything about what AccuWx sent to UMD. 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. Thanks for the correction on the distance & timing. I was relying on a faulty memory or erroneous posts in this thread. I should have looked at the primary source. However, I don't think that changes the overall point that the warning was an overzealous one, and one that poses the risk of increasing warning fatigue. On your second point, I agree that folks should not be surprised that folks from AccuWx aren't interested in posting in this thread. Indeed, I was surprised to see Jesse in here in the first place. While I disagree that there have been any threats leveled at AccuWx, the conversation certainly has been very pointed and critical of AccuWx. It'd be nice if Jesse felt comfortable in participating in that conversation and providing a different perspective that is no doubt missing from this conversation, but I find it rare in the corporate world to find reps of a corporation willing to engage in that type of open communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAwxman Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 On your second point, I agree that folks should not be surprised that folks from AccuWx aren't interested in posting in this thread. Indeed, I was surprised to see Jesse in here in the first place. While I disagree that there have been any threats leveled at AccuWx, the conversation certainly has been very pointed and critical of AccuWx. It'd be nice if Jesse felt comfortable in participating in that conversation and providing a different perspective that is no doubt missing from this conversation, but I find it rare in the corporate world to find reps of a corporation willing to engage in that type of open communication. Yeah the trashing of AccuWx is excessive IMO, and while I totally disagree as well with the notion that there have been threats made to them, I can see why many there would refrain from posting. On the flip side though, I think it would go a long way in helping gain some credibility if some did post here. As myself and Jamie have mentioned, there are many great folks inside the company that most people never see, who are not a part of the "hype" machine that is seen outwardly. Getting some of those folks in on discussions I think would be a plus for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Yeah the trashing of AccuWx is excessive IMO, and while I totally disagree as well with the notion that there have been threats made to them, I can see why many there would refrain from posting. On the flip side though, I think it would go a long way in helping gain some credibility if some did post here. As myself and Jamie have mentioned, there are many great folks inside the company that most people never see, who are not a part of the "hype" machine that is seen outwardly. Getting some of those folks in on discussions I think would be a plus for them. No one has ever bashed the actual mets from Accuwx (except JB, of course)...it's always their policies and ways of doing business that gets them in trouble around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAwxman Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 No one has ever bashed the actual mets from Accuwx (except JB, of course)...it's always their policies and ways of doing business that gets them in trouble around here. Oh I know that's the main target, and I bash some of those myself. But the organization as a whole does get trashed by some on here, and that is excessive. You may not do it yourself, but some do. That's irrelevant to the point though, which is just that it would be good for AccuWx to come in and address stuff like this instead of hiding. That is not going to do anything to help their image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Oh I know that's the main target, and I bash some of those myself. But the organization as a whole does get trashed by some on here, and that is excessive. You may not do it yourself, but some do. That's irrelevant to the point though, which is just that it would be good for AccuWx to come in and address stuff like this instead of hiding. That is not going to do anything to help their image. I'm sure Accuwx could care less about what a weather msg board thinks about them enough to want to address things publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAwxman Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 I'm sure Accuwx could care less about what a weather msg board thinks about them enough to want to address things publicly. In that what folks here think of them is a pretty good reflection of what a lot of people think of them elsewhere, they should care, but yes, I know they do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 In that what folks here think of them is a pretty good reflection of what a lot of people think of them elsewhere, they should care, but yes, I know they do not. I imagine Accuwx knows the overwhelming majority of the public and their customers know or care little about about weather politics and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted October 25, 2011 Author Share Posted October 25, 2011 I imagine Accuwx knows the overwhelming majority of the public and their customers know or care little about about weather politics and such. Eh, they should care what a lot of their competitors, suppliers, and potential customers/employees think of them... or else they risk cutting off their nose to spite their face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAwxman Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 I imagine Accuwx knows the overwhelming majority of the public and their customers know or care little about about weather politics and such. You'd be surprised. Having been on the inside, I know that sentiment comes from more places than you'd think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Eh, they should care what a lot of their competitors, suppliers, and potential customers/employees think of them... or else they risk cutting off their nose to spite their face. You'd be surprised. Having been on the inside, I know that sentiment comes from more places than you'd think. Well, until it affects their profit margin I doubt Accuwx will change their policies and ways of doing business. They won't change just to be introspectively nicer, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.