Witness Protection Program Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Horrible, stupid gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJO812 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/twc-winter-storm-naming-will-m/83668 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 A nicely laid out opinion by someone with meteorology/social science experience in the WAS*IS research program. http://digitalmeteorologist.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/a-storm-about-naming-storms/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 http://www.accuweath...ng-will-m/83668 Will be highly interested in seeing if AccuWx, a major competitor, gives in and creates their own naming scheme. According to this they won't, but that remains to be seen. I could see AccuWx simply trying to jump on the nearly unanimous negative press bandwagon to put pressure on TWC...or they could form their own scheme. What occurs, IMHO, will be dependent upon what type of criticism and success TWC has with it. This winter will be interesting. " TWC Winter Storm Naming "Will Mislead Public" By Jillian Macmath, AccuWeather.com Staff Writer October 02, 2012; 5:15 AM More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter The Weather Channel announced Tuesday that they plan to begin naming "noteworthy" winter storms in the 2012-2013 season. The decision has led to an outpouring of comments and criticism on the web, and particularly on social media outlets. After reviewing The Weather Channel's release in its entirety and taking into account all factors, Dr. Joel N. Myers, AccuWeather Founder and President, released the following statement: "In unilaterally deciding to name winter storms, The Weather Channel has confused media spin with science and public safety. We have explored this issue for 20 years and have found that this is not good science and will mislead the public. Winter storms are very different from hurricanes. Hurricanes are well-defined storms following a path that can be tracked. Winter storms are often erratic, affecting different areas unevenly. Their centers may not be well-defined. There may be multiple centers and they often shift. One area may get a blizzard, while places not too far away may experience rain or fog, or nothing at all. Naming a winter storm that may deliver such varied weather will create more confusion in the public and the emergency management community." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 A bigger problem with naming storms 72 hours in advance is they usually aren't even born yet at that stage, the ingredients will be coming together but there'll be no storm. That's like the NHC declaring hurricanes 72 hours in advance because it was on the GFS. I don't know about that. How often does it really happen. I can remember many times the models 72 hours from a bomb to from in West Central Texas and the models take it to Memphis as a 994mb storm and it ends up in Southern Alabama as a 1002mb storm or Indy and I get rain as a 988mb storm. but i rarely recall 72 hour out models all agree it's gonna pop and no pop at all. Most times storms dont pop at all it's because one model has a couple runs and we all go weenie out and it never was really in the cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthlight Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Bad idea since there are so many mid-latitude cyclones per season and they often have complex interactions. There's no way they're actually going to name every mid-latitude cyclone with wintry precip so the naming process will be biased and in the end worthless from a scientific perspective. I think it'll be confusing to the public too. This. A beautiful, well developed cyclone producing prolific snows in the less populated western US might not get a name, while a frontal wave that produces a half inch of snow in Atlanta will be remembered as the Great Nemo Snowstorm of 2012? Please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohleary Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 it stops people from naming them ridiculous names anyways like "snowmageddon" or "snowpocolypse" I'll take snowpocolypse any day over winter storm gandalf. Ugh. Shoot me now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillB Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Would there be this much negativity if it was HPC doing it and not TWC? This is a bad idea. It's a bad idea if TWC does it. It's a bad idea if another private service does it. It's a bad idea if HPC does it. After the drama of the first or second storm, any gains in public safety response will be lost in growing public boredom as the novelty of the idea wore off. The NWS, if it were to follow this path, would be squandering its already limited resources on a gimmick rather than on actual enhancement of public safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I have a friend at TWC. Both his professional and personal FB accounts were absolutely dead quiet today. My guess: Dissension within the ranks about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WEATHER53 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Seems too cutesy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phlwx Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 Jealousy runs high in here. How anyone can find a negative in this doesn't like being a weather weenie. This is great for weather fans. I can't wait until the first relatively significant storm comes along that they don't name to watch the whining commence from the side that's pro-name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phlwx Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 I have a friend at TWC. Both his professional and personal FB accounts were absolutely dead quiet today. My guess: Dissension within the ranks about this? The two that I know have two different takes -- one posted the link and asked "what do you think" and left it at that...the other is silent. Not sure it means a heckuva lot though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 The two that I know have two different takes -- one posted the link and asked "what do you think" and left it at that...the other is silent. Not sure it means a heckuva lot though... Considering they are the some of the most recognizable faces on the network, that is no surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Can't wait for AccuWeather to come up with their own naming system, and then to watch them and TWC race to be the first to christen each system and "own" it-- so that they start naming every cheap low that might produce a flurry within 200 mi of a metro region. The NWS will wisely keep its distance from this comedy. lolz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Can't wait for AccuWeather to come up with their own naming system, and then to watch them and TWC race to be the first to christen each system and "own" it-- so that they start naming every cheap low that might produce a flurry within 200 mi of a metro region. The NWS will wisely keep its distance from this comedy. lolz This is what I first thought as well. Accuwx has a history of hyping up a storm well before it actually occurs and there is no way they will allow a competitor to get ahead of them wrt attracting viewers. It will inevitably lead to naming of fantasy storms on the models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phlwx Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 Considering they are the some of the most recognizable faces on the network, that is no surprise. At the same time, you have Al and Stephanie playing it up pretty heavily on air and in social media and Jim Cantore making the rounds on the NBC O & O's to talk about the move. They are arguably more recognizable names than most other OCM's and behind the scenes types so I'm frankly not surprised those three are playing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsley Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Bad idea by TWC for the many reasons given already in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSNN4 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 This going to create confusion among the public especially early and late season events. It is bad enough the public fails most common sense weather awareness test, most of the public don't know the difference from a watch, warning or advisory. I wonder if National Weather Service knew about this and what they had to say if anything, I would also fire who ever thought this up at The Weather Channel starting with there current winter weather expert, There where many reasons why Paul Kocin left TWC and went back to the National Weather Service. The Weather Channel was great when they first started and kept it to weather now " The Channel " as Cantore calls it has become a joke and continues to be unwatchable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suncat Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 What happens when two winter storms merge? What happens if Winter Storm Brutus overtakes Winter Storm Ceasar? Does the new megastorm get a new name or a hybrid name of the two former storms? If Winter Storm Imma merges with Winter Storm Horace, is the new storm called Imma-Horace? Procratinating minds want to know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Festus Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 It appears Accuweather is not amused - http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/twc-winter-storm-naming-will-m/83668 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozz Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 It appears Accuweather is not amused - http://www.accuweath...ng-will-m/83668 Well said, but then again they're the ones who stared that "snowicane" nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT Rain Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 There are certainly those within the NWS that would prefer that the focus is shifted more toward getting the forecast numbers and expected impact correct, rather than spending loads of time hand-wringing over "headline" decisions. What constitutes a headline can differ from office to office, from forecaster to forecaster, and even from week to week on the calendar. All that apparent disagreement might make an organization look like they're having trouble speaking with a consistent message. In reality, if you pulled back the VTEC and looked at the numbers being produced by a bunch of well-educated mets, I bet the forecasts would line up pretty well most of the time. The extreme solution would be to do away with headlines entirely, and let the forecast speak for itself. That's not a completely reasonable approach during winter weather, where sometimes the "headline-level" threats are not easily quantifiable in the forecast (such as freezing rain amounts, black ice, and so on). It's especially applicable, though, when dealing with strict criteria-based headlines such as heat and wind chill products, which essentially should be able to just "fall out" of the numerical forecast data. The NWS is all about Decision Support Services (DSS) right now, but ideally, an educated user base should be able to make their decisions based on the forecast -- not because they required a specific headline to be issued. Ideally, an educated broadcast met should focus on explaining the impacts rather than the headlines, because that's the most important part of it for the general public -- not the watches, warnings, and advisories that (at times) might make the situation tougher to understand in a 2-minute spot coming out of a commercial break. Even with that said, there is still utility for winter weather headlines, especially in complex situations where a simple snowfall amount isn't going to tell the whole story. The NWS won't likely abandon that in the near future, although I don't anticipate you'll be seeing any cutesy names in the next WSW . Great post and I agree whole heartedly. At the end of the day the end users wants to know what impact a given storm will have on their day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg ralls Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I'm not sure I think it's a good idea, but I'll admit that I'm kind of looking forward to seeing how it goes this winter. It could be kind of fun, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calm_days Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 A day later and I am realizing a possible explanation behind some organization wanting to assign a name to winter storms. New winter patterns or lack of predictable patterns, corresponding to the Atlantic, could be very significant, or, significantly unpredictable. http://www.ssd.noaa....tl/loop-wv.html I still don't like the names they chose. It seems frivolous to have these silly names when potentially life-threatening storms are looming. Yes, some of the names are honestly too, well, to borrow part of one of the first names they may use, brutal... Tropical systems are not given threatening names. Many of these sound like the names that would be given to winter storms if Russia conquered America. We will see what happens. This particular list simply goes well beyond what was necessary to label winter storms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 It appears Accuweather is not amused - http://www.accuweath...ng-will-m/83668 "We have explored this issue for 20 years and have found that this is not good science and will mislead the public." Never thought I'd see AccuWeather standing up for science and responsible reportage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 "We have explored this issue for 20 years and have found that this is not good science and will mislead the public." Never thought I'd see AccuWeather standing up for science and responsible reportage. I give them two winter seasons max before they come up with their own naming convention if it goes well this winter with TWC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Lizard Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I don't need a made up name to remember the Boxing Day Storm (lived vicariously through the NYC forum), the Blizzard of '78 ( also had the great snow that didn't change to rain as expected storm of 1978, and I think the Ohio Valley had their own Blizzard of '78), the South Texas Christmas Miracle of 2004 (IIRC first accumulating snow in over 100 years for BRO and more snow in one event in CRP than previous 70 years combined, and a dusting on my palms and then '92 Buick Skylark (it is gone now)). And the Houston Snow Miracle of 2009, when we beat DCA/IAD for the first accumulating snow of the season, and my Canary Island pygmy date palm died. Big storms already get named, the Lindsay storm, Presidents Day. No need for Disney inspired goof names. And again, the NHC, the WMO designated RSMC, names existing storms, not storms 3 days out on the GFS that may or may not turn out to be blockbusters. Or complete busts. And the authority to name a storm blurs the line between naming and issuing advisories that official government agencies, ie, TPC/NHC has, at least in the public mind. If HPC wanted to do it, it's bother me less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 A nicely laid out opinion by someone with meteorology/social science experience in the WAS*IS research program. http://digitalmeteor...-naming-storms/ Good article. I agree with it almost entirely and have presented some of those points here. Everyone and their dog is talking about TWC. Big win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riptide Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I don't necessarily have an issue with naming storms, the choice of names is just ridiculous. Q and Khan are known Sci-Fi references, Iago and Nemo are known as Disney characters, Gandolf is a Harry Potter reference. It's like they're going out of their way to TRY to be viral. Even if those names are references to other things, they are in the public conscious as pop culture references and nothing more. Good luck trying to convey the seriousness of a blizzard with those kind of names. Many will be stuck on the name and not the message. The naming system should be based on the storm's origin or put into context of impacts, like how it has been for years but conveyed in a official sense. Using simple names degenerates the significance of the snowstorm, and it's also very bad for research purposes unless they directly categorize them like hurricanes. Clipper "Khan" or Snowstorm "Khan", even Winter Storm "Khan" doesn't sound very appealing either. Pretty soon, we'll have american idol for weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klw Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Maybe they can sell naming rights to the storms to commercial sponsors. Ex. Blizzard Toro- "Once Blizzard Toro has left snow in your neighborhood, break out your Toro brand snow blower to clean up your home" Winter Storm Coors- "The only thing colder than this Alberta Clipper is a nice cold Coors light." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.