CooL Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Q. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko 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/ Great blog post. I agree with it entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Great blog post. I agree with it entirely. "In making this change unilaterally, The Weather Channel has essentially tossed effective risk communication out the window and their partners in the National Weather Service and other corners of the “weather community” under the bus." That's a pretty damming statement.... especially since its essentially directed at a former NWS MIC. Guess he didn't like the NWS all that much. No wonder he bailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieOber Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 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. One thing I've noticed that the guy mentions is winter storms get names on social media via tags, like "snomg" for example. So, it's an organic process in that case. Great blog post and definite food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieOber 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. It was also considered to be a big marketing risk due to variability of conditions in winter storms, which Joel mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm8 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Started wondering this afternoon if we'll ever see any NWS product refer to a storm by its TWC-given name, even if it's just a sarcastic mention of the name in quotes in an AFD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Started wondering this afternoon if we'll ever see any NWS product refer to a storm by its TWC-given name, even if it's just a sarcastic mention of the name in quotes in an AFD. I wouldn't be surprised if the bold did happen. As far as official products... probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynSnow Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Are they going to name the storm that is affecting ND and Northern MN tonight into Friday? Or is a potential 12 inch snowfall in a small region of the country not significant enough to name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Are they going to name the storm that is affecting ND and Northern MN tonight into Friday? Or is a potential 12 inch snowfall in a small region of the country not significant enough to name? I'd guess that a potential 12 inch snow in a relatively unpopulated area of the country is not significant enough to name (as far as they are concerned). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 "In making this change unilaterally, The Weather Channel has essentially tossed effective risk communication out the window and their partners in the National Weather Service and other corners of the “weather community” under the bus." That's a pretty damming statement.... especially since its essentially directed at a former NWS MIC. Guess he didn't like the NWS all that much. No wonder he bailed. This is not true. Tom Niziol is a nice guy. He simply retired from the NWS and got an offer from TWC that he just could not pass up. He has done a lot of work with lake effect snow and also NWS Buffalo names significant lake effect snow events, and this is probably where this naming came from now for winter storms on the larger scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I'd guess that a potential 12 inch snow in a relatively unpopulated area of the country is not significant enough to name (as far as they are concerned). Not to mention it's not a particularly severe storm for that part of the country. Though a bit unusual for how early in the season it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Not to mention it's not a particularly severe storm for that part of the country. Though a bit unusual for how early in the season it is. Hmmm... is it though? I would think that, at any given location, 12" storms aren't all that common up there mainly because of the lack of precip... A 3-6" storm, sure that's nothing... but is a 12" storm really not that big a deal? I notice that WSW criteria for the northern Plains is the same as in northern NJ, and 12" of snow is definitely a big storm in NJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 This is not true. Tom Niziol is a nice guy. He simply retired from the NWS and got an offer from TWC that he just could not pass up. He has done a lot of work with lake effect snow and also NWS Buffalo names significant lake effect snow events, and this is probably where this naming came from now for winter storms on the larger scale. At least what NWS Buffalo does is for a small area and for a very specific type of event. This just seems like it has questions/problems all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJHurricane Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I have to admit I laughed at first...but conveying the nuance of forecast confidence especially for high impact events has been a major challenge of the communication aspect of forecasting....its hard to argue that people will sit up and take note IF this is done right and only the highest impact events receive names. At the very least it is an experiment in different methods of communicating forecast info, and lets face it communicating weather info has far lagged behind the increase in forecasting skill. I guess I feel the same way about this as I do about Accuweathers 16 day forecast...its worth a try, and somebody has to run the risk of being the first to fail to eventually move the ball forward. Jon in Jersey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I want to see the NWS stop this from happening. TWC is not the official WMO source of info for our country, and they should not be allowed to cause public confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Hmmm... is it though? I would think that, at any given location, 12" storms aren't all that common up there mainly because of the lack of precip... A 3-6" storm, sure that's nothing... but is a 12" storm really not that big a deal? I notice that WSW criteria for the northern Plains is the same as in northern NJ, and 12" of snow is definitely a big storm in NJ. Well, I don't think it's a very big area expected to see 12". And besides, while it is a big dump for them and well-worthy of a WSW, you're still talking about a part of the country that sees significant winter storms on a regular basis. Now if it turned into a blizzard-warned storm, that would be pretty major, especially considering how early in the season it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 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. Accuweather translation: We didn't have the ballz to comeout publicly with this idea, so we are going to rip on TWC for experimenting with new ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 At least what NWS Buffalo does is for a small area and for a very specific type of event. This just seems like it has questions/problems all over it. Yeah. I was just giving some history about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm8 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I still don't understand how naming a storm will lead to "more public confusion". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I have to admit I laughed at first...but conveying the nuance of forecast confidence especially for high impact events has been a major challenge of the communication aspect of forecasting....its hard to argue that people will sit up and take note IF this is done right and only the highest impact events receive names. At the very least it is an experiment in different methods of communicating forecast info, and lets face it communicating weather info has far lagged behind the increase in forecasting skill. I guess I feel the same way about this as I do about Accuweathers 16 day forecast...its worth a try, and somebody has to run the risk of being the first to fail to eventually move the ball forward. Jon in Jersey 25 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I still don't understand how naming a storm will lead to "more public confusion". Just one quick example... "The local guy on ABC is calling for a winter storm, but didn't say anything about the name I heard on The Weather Channel this morning. Are they talking about two different storms? Why isn't the guy on ABC calling it Winter Storm Brutus? Did the forecast change so much that they decided to take the name away?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm8 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Just one quick example... "The local guy on ABC is calling for a winter storm, but didn't say anything about the name I heard on The Weather Channel this morning. Are they talking about two different storms? Why isn't the guy on ABC calling it Winter Storm Brutus? Did the forecast change so much that they decided to take the name away?" And then they see that the local guy is calling for 6" thursday night, which is the same thing as their Local on the 8s show. Regardless of the name, actual forecasts will be no different then every other year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 And then they see that the local guy is calling for 6" thursday night, which is the same thing as their Local on the 8s show. Regardless of the name, actual forecasts will be no different then every other year. Which of course might mean that no one pays attention to the names since only TWC and perhaps the NBC O&O's will be using them. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 And then they see that the local guy is calling for 6" thursday night, which is the same thing as their Local on the 8s show. Regardless of the name, actual forecasts will be no different then every other year. So if the forecast is exactly the same, why is TWC calling it Brutus while the ABC guy continues to just call it a winter storm? Is the ABC guy or TWC seeing something the other is not? Also, it's not uncommon for different mets and companies to disagree on snowfall forecasts... there could very easily be a situation when TWC calls for 4-8" when the local guy calls for 2-4" or vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm8 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 So if the forecast is exactly the same, why is TWC calling it Brutus while the ABC guy continues to just call it a winter storm? Is the ABC guy or TWC seeing something the other is not? Also, it's not uncommon for different mets and companies to disagree on snowfall forecasts... there could very easily be a situation when TWC calls for 4-8" when the local guy calls for 2-4" or vice versa. But since that has always been the case, why would it be any more confusing this year? "Is the ABC guy or TWC seeing something the other is not?" Well obviously the answer is yes, if the actual forecast is different. And again, this is no different than past years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 But since that has always been the case, why would it be any more confusing this year? "Is the ABC guy or TWC seeing something the other is not?" Well obviously the answer is yes, if the actual forecast is different. And again, this is no different than past years. So let's say the forecast is for Atlanta. TWC is calling for 2-4" and named the storm Brutus. ABC guy calls for 4-8" but doesn't mention a name. General public person heard that big storms were getting names now, but why isn't the ABC using the name if he thinks there will be more snow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 So let's say the forecast is for Atlanta. TWC is calling for 2-4" and named the storm Brutus. ABC guy calls for 4-8" but doesn't mention a name. General public person heard that big storms were getting names now, but why isn't the ABC using the name if he thinks there will be more snow? Doesn't matter, if people can't understand the difference between the educated guesses, then let darwinism take over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Point is this: Life would be simpler with just having the two snow forecasts and leaving it at that instead of having inconsistency with different outlets using/not using names for the storms. In a time in which the public and private sectors are trying to create better, clearer communication, without full participation in using the names, I imagine it would work against the clearer communication objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm8 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 So let's say the forecast is for Atlanta. TWC is calling for 2-4" and named the storm Brutus. ABC guy calls for 4-8" but doesn't mention a name. General public person heard that big storms were getting names now, but why isn't the ABC using the name if he thinks there will be more snow? Differences of that magnitude in forecasts a pretty rare, first of all. But they do happen, so yeah, lets consider that situation. I agree with you that the person might be asking themselves, "Hey, why is my ABC guy not using the name?" ......and that's it. Their forecasts may be different, but that has always been the case. The additional difference in that one forecast calls the storm a name is not significant enough to increase confusion in any meaningful way, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Differences of that magnitude in forecasts a pretty rare, first of all. But they do happen, so yeah, lets consider that situation. I agree with you that the person might be asking themselves, "Hey, why is my ABC guy not using the name?" ......and that's it. I see those kinds of differences all the time, especially when there's uncertainty in the position of the rain/snow line. Just recalling one of the more extreme instances from last winter, there was one storm that hit the Mid-Atlantic on Feb. 19 in which one or two mets were calling for 2-4+" for Baltimore, but others had forecast a dusting. I remember Justin Berk calling for 4" for that event... he was confident enough in his forecast that he had Tweeted/Facebooked that he would run a mile for every inch of snow that he was over. Myself and others were forecasting between 0-1". He had to run 4 miles after the storm had passed... BWI didn't even get a trace as the storm missed to the south. EDIT: I actually went back and checked... his Baltimore call was for 2+", with DC/Annapolis at 4". He ran 8 miles... 2 miles for each inch of snow DC was under his 4" forecast. Like BWI, DC's forecast from others was 0-1". DC recorded a trace of snow with a rain/snow mix, but there was no actual accumulation. So yeah, significant differences can and often do happen with snowfall forecasts. Their forecasts may be different, but that has always been the case. The additional difference in that one forecast calls the storm a name is not significant enough to increase confusion in any meaningful way, Is that so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.