hm8 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Tell me the need why they need to do this? Have we been missing out on this for the last few decades? if it isnt broke, why try and fix it? It is just a ridiculous idea and no need for it. Even without knowing criteria they are going to use, it is dumb to do this. But you're missing my point. Even if there isn't any need for it, if it won't do any harm then why get so worked up over it? It isn't worth 6 pages of bickering. Let TWC do their thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurricaneschwartz Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 If TWC starts doing commercials with Dairy Queen, it will be very sad: http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2012-10-02/agfv1gvGbzWs.html I sure hope this isn't the reason TWC did this. But the eventual association is almost inevitable. Glenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avdave Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 But you're missing my point. Even if there isn't any need for it, if it won't do any harm then why get so worked up over it? It isn't worth 6 pages of bickering. Let TWC do their thing. You are also missing my point. If it isnt broke, then why try and fix it? I dont think anyone was getting worked up, it was a civil discussion taking place. Still it is a dumb idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloudcrash619 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I don't know if I really like this idea either, but it won't hurt to try it out for one winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 If TWC starts doing commercials with Dairy Queen, it will be very sad: http://www.bloomberg...fv1gvGbzWs.html I sure hope this isn't the reason TWC did this. But the eventual association is almost inevitable. Glenn I wonder how long until the WS action figures will be coming out after that? Hmmm... $$$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 You are also missing my point. If it isnt broke, then why try and fix it? I dont think anyone was getting worked up, it was a civil discussion taking place. Still it is a dumb idea. If it catches on, it will at least make it easier to refer back to previous winter storms/seasons. Other than just..."remember that big storm that one December?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I don't really see a problem with naming major storms as long as the names aren't silly. Nemo and Yogi cross that line. We're talking about serious weather events that can kill people and cause millions in damage and they don't need whimsical names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm8 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 You are also missing my point. If it isnt broke, then why try and fix it? I dont think anyone was getting worked up, it was a civil discussion taking place. Still it is a dumb idea. Lol guess we're arguing two different things then, I missed your point because I was trying to defend my original point, which you missed.... I suppose that the people at TWC theoretically do believe it is "broke" in the sense that they are trying to improve it. Whether or not we agree with them on that matter is irrelevant...we don't have to use the system if we don't want to, and use our traditional methods that work just fine.. It just got to the point in this thread where everyone was pretty much bashing TWC for the same reasons, and claiming their reasons justified that TWC should not have done this. That's where I disagree. There may be reason to personally believe naming winter storms is silly or pointless, but those reasons do not support the idea that TWC needs to trash the idea immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Lol guess we're arguing two different things then, I missed your point because I was trying to defend my original point, which you missed.... I suppose that the people at TWC theoretically do believe it is "broke" in the sense that they are trying to improve it. Whether or not we agree with them on that matter is irrelevant...we don't have to use the system if we don't want to, and use our traditional methods that work just fine.. It just got to the point in this thread where everyone was pretty much bashing TWC for the same reasons, and claiming their reasons justified that TWC should not have done this. That's where I disagree. There may be reason to personally believe naming winter storms is silly or pointless, but those reasons do not support the idea that TWC needs to trash the idea immediately. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoralRed Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I hardly ever post because I am completely unschooled in weather matters. But I am posting today because even I realize what a bad thing the Weather Channel has done here. My quarrel is not with the idea of naming storms -- I don't know enough about the issues to even have an opinion about that. My quarrel is with how this was done -- and why. This is a stunning usurpation of the US government's role in weather here in the US. From what I understand, it's also a stunning usurpation of the role of the various meteorological societies and the meteorological experts serving at our universities and in private industries. Surely the idea of naming storms should have been proposed and discussed by meteorological experts and then the various Federal officials and experts approached and the idea approved or rejected. I assume that's roughly how these things are usually done. What the Weather Channel has done here is a form of bomb throwing. That it was done for a "good cause" does not really matter. How can we have anarchy in a science-related field? Who is the Weather Channel to decide, all by itself, that US winter storms should be named, starting this year and using the names they established? I can't even believe they came up with an idea like this, much less went ahead with it. What kinds of increased profits are they hoping to get for this -- and how much did that play in their decision? Are they going to charge the National Weather Service royalties if they use their names? The Weather Channel is a private company. What are we going to have next? Defense contractors declaring what countries are our friends and enemies and telling the public what military equipment we need? This needs to be protested and nipped in the bud right away. Shame on them for doing something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwohweather Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Ehh this sounds dumb. Thing about a hurricane is you can watch it for days as it slides across the Atlantic. Snowstorms don't really get going until the pieces of it phase so they'll be and they're usually out in 2 days. I think if they said we're only going to name blizzards I'd be okay since those are true beasts, but a 6-10" App Runner shouldn't be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm8 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I hardly ever post because I am completely unschooled in weather matters. But I am posting today because even I realize what a bad thing the Weather Channel has done here. My quarrel is not with the idea of naming storms -- I don't know enough about the issues to even have an opinion about that. My quarrel is with how this was done -- and why. This is a stunning usurpation of the US government's role in weather here in the US. From what I understand, it's also a stunning usurpation of the role of the various meteorological societies and the meteorological experts serving at our universities and in private industries. Surely the idea of naming storms should have been proposed and discussed by meteorological experts and then the various Federal officials and experts approached and the idea approved or rejected. I assume that's roughly how these things are usually done. What the Weather Channel has done here is a form of bomb throwing. That it was done for a "good cause" does not really matter. How can we have anarchy in a science-related field? Who is the Weather Channel to decide, all by itself, that US winter storms should be named, starting this year and using the names they established? I can't even believe they came up with an idea like this, much less went ahead with it. What kinds of increased profits are they hoping to get for this -- and how much did that play in their decision? Are they going to charge the National Weather Service royalties if they use their names? The Weather Channel is a private company. What are we going to have next? Defense contractors declaring what countries are our friends and enemies and telling the public what military equipment we need? This needs to be protested and nipped in the bud right away. Shame on them for doing something like this. best be trollin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 best be trollin' my thoughts exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Surely the idea of naming storms should have been proposed and discussed by meteorological experts and then the various Federal officials and experts approached and the idea approved or rejected. I assume that's roughly how these things are usually done. Ideally yes. However, private corporations can do anything they want. They obviously didn't want to confer on this or build supporting relationships with other agencies. They are doing this to make money. It's a "oh, look what we got that others don't!" ploy. Wish 'em well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAG5035 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I'm sure it remains to be seen what exact criteria and impacts TWC will use with their naming but I think if you're going to name winter storms and make it applicable to all regions of the Lower 48 one would have to consider the full spectrum of actual winter storm impacts, which can go beyond just snow and ice in some regions. If we have a major Pacific system crashing into the Western states, you're not only getting feet of snow in the mountains... you can have flooding rains that trigger mudslides as well. For most people in places in and around Los Angeles for instance, that can be a major impact of a winter storm. Then of course, the system might then move across the country and turn into a central and/or eastern snowstorm. Also, how about severe weather? You could have a winter storm to the lakes that gives the north-central a blizzard (where there's not a dense population like the northeast of course) while spawning a tornado outbreak in the lower Ohio Valley and Southeast, especially later in the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoralRed Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 No I am not trolling. Why would you think that? I think it's terrible that a private company, all by itself, went ahead and did something like this all on its own. If we're going to have named winter storms, they should be declared "named winter storms" by the government weather experts using government approved criteria and using a list of names compiled by the government. It should be just like what is done for hurricanes. I don't want other private companies who are big in their particular corner of the world to start getting big ideas and do the same thing. That's it. That's what I think. No trolling involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I hardly ever post because I am completely unschooled in weather matters. But I am posting today because even I realize what a bad thing the Weather Channel has done here. My quarrel is not with the idea of naming storms -- I don't know enough about the issues to even have an opinion about that. My quarrel is with how this was done -- and why. This is a stunning usurpation of the US government's role in weather here in the US. From what I understand, it's also a stunning usurpation of the role of the various meteorological societies and the meteorological experts serving at our universities and in private industries. Surely the idea of naming storms should have been proposed and discussed by meteorological experts and then the various Federal officials and experts approached and the idea approved or rejected. I assume that's roughly how these things are usually done. What the Weather Channel has done here is a form of bomb throwing. That it was done for a "good cause" does not really matter. How can we have anarchy in a science-related field? Who is the Weather Channel to decide, all by itself, that US winter storms should be named, starting this year and using the names they established? I can't even believe they came up with an idea like this, much less went ahead with it. What kinds of increased profits are they hoping to get for this -- and how much did that play in their decision? Are they going to charge the National Weather Service royalties if they use their names? The Weather Channel is a private company. What are we going to have next? Defense contractors declaring what countries are our friends and enemies and telling the public what military equipment we need? This needs to be protested and nipped in the bud right away. Shame on them for doing something like this. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm8 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 No I am not trolling. Why would you think that? I think it's terrible that a private company, all by itself, went ahead and did something like this all on its own. I don't want other private companies who are big in their particular corner of the world to start getting big ideas and do the same thing. That's it. That's what I think. No trolling involved. Why do you believe that this is an "usurpation of the US government"? Its not as if TWC will claim that these are official names issued by the NWS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 This is a stunning usurpation of the US government's role in weather here in the US. You made some good points. I'm sure naming WSs wont have any impact as far as NWS products/ops go. It'll be viewed like their TORCON as an "oh really, huh" type of deal. "Oh, TWC is calling this storm Bunga? Cute. Okay, back to work." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoralRed Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 hm 8 asked me: "Why do you believe that this is an "usurpation of the US government" I added another sentence to the post of mine that you quote which answers you question. I said: "If we're going to have named winter storms, they should be declared "named winter storms" by the government weather experts using government approved criteria and using a list of names compiled by the government. It should be just like what is done for hurricanes. We have put the government in charge of making the big decisions about weather. The private companies augment and react to that. They agree, disagree and otherwise add their own two cents to the official weather forecasts and products produced by the government. That's the system we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Why do you believe that this is an "usurpation of the US government"? Its not as if TWC will claim that these are official names issued by the NWS. My only problem is this was done purely for profit as opposed to actual benefit to society. TWC playing it off as anything else is disingenuous. Beyond that, it is a great marketing ploy, and I bet they are loving all the attention. Waiting to see if the potential northern plains storm later this week, which will affect no more than 50,000 people, will get a name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I hardly ever post because I am completely unschooled in weather matters. But I am posting today because even I realize what a bad thing the Weather Channel has done here. My quarrel is not with the idea of naming storms -- I don't know enough about the issues to even have an opinion about that. My quarrel is with how this was done -- and why. This is a stunning usurpation of the US government's role in weather here in the US. From what I understand, it's also a stunning usurpation of the role of the various meteorological societies and the meteorological experts serving at our universities and in private industries. Surely the idea of naming storms should have been proposed and discussed by meteorological experts and then the various Federal officials and experts approached and the idea approved or rejected. I assume that's roughly how these things are usually done. What the Weather Channel has done here is a form of bomb throwing. That it was done for a "good cause" does not really matter. How can we have anarchy in a science-related field? Who is the Weather Channel to decide, all by itself, that US winter storms should be named, starting this year and using the names they established? I can't even believe they came up with an idea like this, much less went ahead with it. What kinds of increased profits are they hoping to get for this -- and how much did that play in their decision? Are they going to charge the National Weather Service royalties if they use their names? The Weather Channel is a private company. What are we going to have next? Defense contractors declaring what countries are our friends and enemies and telling the public what military equipment we need? This needs to be protested and nipped in the bud right away. Shame on them for doing something like this. I think the idea of: Liberty, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Free Enterprise, Free Market is lost on you in this manner. Weather is tangible and not owned by the Govt nor a matter of national defense. Think NATURAL, NATURE, THE RHEALM OF THE GODS. If the govt told TWC they can't do this that would be communism. I am a bleeding heart atheist liberal but freedom of speech is paramount and weather is tangible. Defense Contractors telling the public we should bomb a country for profit would be a direct violation of national security. Again a hurricane or blizzard killing 10K people is an "Act of God" "act of Nature" no one, no got, no private company, no public citizen is Privy to Weather over another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I'm sure it remains to be seen what exact criteria and impacts TWC will use with their naming but I think if you're going to name winter storms and make it applicable to all regions of the Lower 48 one would have to consider the full spectrum of actual winter storm impacts, which can go beyond just snow and ice in some regions. If we have a major Pacific system crashing into the Western states, you're not only getting feet of snow in the mountains... you can have flooding rains that trigger mudslides as well. For most people in places in and around Los Angeles for instance, that can be a major impact of a winter storm. Then of course, the system might then move across the country and turn into a central and/or eastern snowstorm. Also, how about severe weather? You could have a winter storm to the lakes that gives the north-central a blizzard (where there's not a dense population like the northeast of course) while spawning a tornado outbreak in the lower Ohio Valley and Southeast, especially later in the season. I am expecting this will be highly east-coast biased. In defense, the NWS really doesn't have a system in place that isn't east coast biased either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Weather is tangible and not owned by the Govt nor a matter of national defense. Weather is a matter of public safety and public policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 To add: Sometimes as unfortunate as it may be, the basic Rules of Liberty do not always break down into the best way to save and prevent death and destruction through the most logical discourse. But it is more important that the Rules of Liberty do not get violated private or public which gives TWC the right to name HP's over 1040mb if they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 As one of those evil media people (AND an employee of the same company that owns TWC), I am fascinated by the reaction. There are significant concerns from my point of view. The biggest problem is if another private company decides to follow the lead and comes up with their own storm names. That will create chaos, and totally defeat the purpose of naming them in the first place. "Remember that storm in 2014-it was "Caesar" I think. No, it was Debby." Who says both companies will name the "C" storm at the same time? It might be the "D" storm from Company X. What if the storm is named 2 days in advance? Let's say it's a Miller B that isn't even on the map. TWC is predicting 6-12" for the Phila. area, but my forecast is much lower. Then the storm slams NYC and New England, developing later than expected. Yes, the storm "verifies" for TWC, but it's a bust for the Phila. area. People here had been talking about "Caesar" for 2 days, and then we get a mere couple of inches. Who gets blamed? EVERYONE-even the ones who got it right. In theory, it's a harmless, possibly fun way to report the weather. But...... Glenn AccuWx will undoubtedly unveil their own naming conventions soon since there is no way they will use TWC naming conventions. Let the public confusion begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoralRed Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I think the idea of: Liberty, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Free Enterprise, Free Market is lost on you in this manner. Weather is tangible and not owned by the Govt nor a matter of national defense. Think NATURAL, NATURE, THE RHEALM OF THE GODS. If the govt told TWC they can't do this that would be communism. I am a bleeding heart atheist liberal but freedom of speech is paramount and weather is tangible. Defense Contractors telling the public we should bomb a country for profit would be a direct violation of national security. Again a hurricane or blizzard killing 10K people is an "Act of God" "act of Nature" no one, no got, no private company, no public citizen is Privy to Weather over another. You are kidding, aren't you? Weather is "official" in the US. We have federal employees assigned to it. They produce "official" forecasts and products. They also classify storms and name them. That is the system we have. It should be followed. The Weather Channel is not our National Weather Service. It has no official power and it should not do anything that it implies that it does. Naming storms is an official-type action that should only be done by REAL officials, not self-appointed ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phlwx Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 So, we're 12 hours into it...has TWC told us what the criteria of what will be named/unnamed will be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneJosh Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 There are certain things the private sector does best, there are certain things that only the government can do effectively. TWC running a cable channel and providing forecasts to other media outlets is one thing. Naming a storm is getting awfully close to issuing advisories. NHC has clear rules on what constitutes a tropical storm, and while there are gray areas about what constitutes, for example, 'sufficient convection" to upgrade a low to a tropical cyclone, the rules are well understood. Naming systems is one of those big ticket items the government does better. Like running a Navy. And what is to stop AccuWx and WeatherBell from naming Winter storms or significant severe outbreaks and really confuse the heck out of everybody. Agree with this post. Naming a system should be done by the government. Then the media agencies can take it form there. Sure, TWC has enormous market share-- but I can't imagine the NWS using TWC-assigned names, nor can I imagine AccuWeather, which has its own brand aspirations, doing so. All of this aside, I agree with others that the whole decision to name will be an issue. Even with the very technical rules around tropical-cyclone classification, there are still grey areas, and with these big, loose winter systems that don't even have clear centers or cores... omg. I can't wait to see all the weenie-rage ensue when one system is named and another isn't. Messiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
famartin Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Why do you believe that this is an "usurpation of the US government"? Its not as if TWC will claim that these are official names issued by the NWS. The average joe doesn't know the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.